Yahoo News Newcastle doctor was 'indisputably right': Scandal report praises medic for action to protect patients from Hep C
A leading Newcastle medic is praised for "breaking ranks" and bringing in Hepatitis C screening of blood unilaterally in the region - despite the "highly unpleasant and intemperate abuse" he received from colleagues.
Dr Huw Lloyd led the Newcastle-based Northern Regional Blood Transfusion Service from 1988 to 1995. He took the decision to bring in a new Hepatitis C screening test in April 1991 - despite opposition around the country, where what he later called a "lowest common denominator" approach was in place, waiting for all the regional blood transfusion centres to be able to do the same.
This decision was examined in the Infected Blood Inquiry which has considered the circumstances around the NHS's biggest ever treatment disaster - which saw upwards of 30,000 people given blood transfusions - or blood products to treat haemophilia - which were tainted by viruses including HIV and Hepatitis C. More than 3,000 people have died, many others are chronically ill.
Sir Brian Langstaff - chair of the Inquiry - delivered his final report this week and found the scandal "could largely have been avoided". He lay the blame at the hands of medics and the Government in a damning 2,500 page report which accused medics of not acting quickly enough, took aim at Governments over decades "hiding the truth" and said that neither group had acted quickly enough when confronted with the spread of lethal viruses in blood given to NHS patients.
His consideration of Dr Lloyd's decisions in the early-1990s was in the context of how measures to screen NHS blood donations for Hepatitis were brought in. And in Dr Lloyd's view this was not done quickly enough - he "broke ranks" in April 1991, despite opposition from counterparts and superiors.
Dr Lloyd took that decision in view of keeping patients safe, Sir Brian found, and in his final report the Inquiry chair writes the medic "was indisputably right" to do so. This came as the UK was behind other nations in testing blood stocks directly for signs of hepatitis C antibodies.
Previously the health world had been reliant on "surrogate testing" for the virus - which meant testing for other signs of other illnesses often or even inevitably found alongside it. The report explains how in April 1991 Dr Lloyd was notified that the date the screening would be brought in would be delayed from July that year to the September.
He - "unilaterally" - took the decision to bring it in in Newcastle despite this. Afterwards, the report says, Dr Harold Gunson - director of the National Blood Transfusions Service wrote to him "expressing displeasure" at this. Dr Gunson then reported Dr Lloyd's decision to the English and Scottish national transfusion services liaison committee and informed the Department of Health.
Dr Lloyd also informed counterparts around the country - and received four letters of objection, including one referring to his having been "disgraceful and mischievous".
In the final report, Sir Brian writes: "I cannot let this pass without comment. Dr Lloyd’s motivation, as he made clear, was protecting the health of those who received blood transfusions in the North East. He put the safety of recipients first.
"That was indisputable, and was known at the time. The tirade of highly unpleasant and intemperate abuse from colleagues about this is one of the most disturbing aspects of the introduction of anti-HCV screening."
The report concludes it was "breaking ranks" that had brought harsh words upon Dr Lloyd. It continues: "It is also worth recording that in evidence Dame Marcela Contreras reflected back that there was, in reality, little good reason for delaying the start of testing at least at this stage: a policy of waiting when it had already been agreed to introduce a test was always going to result in unnecessary infections, and undoubtedly did so."
Dr Lloyd later said - including in his evidence to the inquiry - that his only regret had not been bringing in the screening test sooner. He also said how other countries had moved ahead of the UK on this, and that this made the national position "look increasingly unrealistic and very hard to defend".
Sir Brian Langstaff concluded that: "Dr Lloyd was right, his detractors were wrong (and unfair in their attitude towards his decision), because his decision protected recipients of donor blood in his region from avoidable Hepatitis C transmission from an earlier date."
