A legal action brought against Peamount Hospital by the two most senior medical personnel there is motivated not by money but by concerns about patient care and safety at the hospital and general public health concerns, the High Court was told yesterday.
Prof Luke Clancy and Dr Paul Kelly were particularly concerned about the absence of any transitional arrangements and lack of consultancy cover for existing and new tuberculosis patients while a new five-year strategic plan for the hospital is being implemented, Mr Michael Cush SC, for the doctors, said.
These concerns were shared by other doctors outside Peamount including Dr Darina O'Flanagan from the National Disease Surveillance Centre who had said in an affidavit that she had received a written assurance that such transitional arrangement would be put in place.
Prof Shane O'Neill of Beaumont Hospital had said he was "amazed" at Peamount's decision to cease admissions without putting transitional arrangements in place, Mr Cush said. Prof O'Neill had said Beaumont had no isolation beds and also expressed concern about the risk of infection if TB patients were admitted through Accident and Emergency departments of hospitals.
However, despite giving notice on March 8th last to Prof Clancy, the only person of consultant status in the hospital, that his redundancy would come into effect on March 22nd, no such transitional arrangements had been put in place, Mr Cush said.
In response to the legal action, the hospital had developed three different TB admission policies in four days, counsel added. These were designed to buttress the proposed redundancies rather than effect a serious admission policy.
He was opening an application before Mr Justice McKechnie by Prof Clancy and Dr Kelly for injunctions maintaining their status pending the outcome of their full court proceedings against the board of management of Peamount Hospital. The hearing continues today.
The board is opposing the application and denies patients health and safety are at risk. They claim Prof Clancy had opposed the new strategic plan and had not co-operated with measures to implement it.
Those claims are denied by Prof Clancy. The board also pleads that it is of critical importance that the strategic plan is implemented.
In the main action, the court will be asked to grant declarations that the purported redundancy of Prof Clancy, medical director of Peamount, was invalid or, alternatively, a declaration that it was invalid until there had been a transfer of its respiratory and TB-related services to another facility capable of accepting those services or until all existing patients under his care had been discharged. Prof Clancy is also claiming to be entitled to work out his 12-month notice period although the hospital required that he work just two weeks of that.
Dr Kelly, senior hospital medical officer, is seeking a declaration that he is and continues to be senior hospital medical officer at Peamount and is not to be treated as having resigned.
Last month, Ms Justice Laffoy granted interim injunctions to Prof Clancy and Dr Kelly restraining their removal from their positions and restraining interference with the conduct of their duties. The orders have been continued on the understanding that any new admissions by Prof Clancy must have the permission of the hospital.
Last July, a five-year strategic plan for Peamount stated that it wished to cease acute medical services.
