Doctor who worked in Norfolk and Cambridge blocked from returning to the profession
A tribunal decided that Dr Tosounidis would still pose a risk to patients if he was allowed to return to unrestricted practice.
A doctor who was struck off the medical register more than a decade ago for numerous errors and repeated dishonesty has been blocked from returning to the profession.
A tribunal decided that Dr Ioannis Tosounidis would still pose a risk to patients if he was allowed to return to unrestricted practice.
Dr Tosounidis was erased from the medical register in August 2014 for disciplinary reasons.
The register is a list of doctors checked by the General Medical Council to prove they can work in the UK and “deliver good, safe patient care”.
Dr Tosounidis had been working as a Locum Consultant Histopathologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge and at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in 2011 at the time of the incidents that led to his erasure.
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found in 2014 that Dr Tosounidis had made numerous errors, with a review of 713 cases he reported on finding 228 with errors.
The panel at the time said the errors “indicated significant departures from the standards expected of a reasonably competent consultant histopathologist”.
The tribunal also found his actions on a number of occasions were “misleading and dishonest”, and said his “dishonesty was repeated over a period of time”.
The incidents included adding another consultant’s name to a pathology report without their knowledge and knowingly not telling the truth about the reason he left Addenbrooke’s Hospital when applying for another job.
The panel found Dr Tosounidis’ fitness to practise was “impaired by reason of both deficient professional performance and misconduct”, and said he would “present a risk to patient safety if he were to practise unrestricted”.
They also said his repeated dishonesty would be “regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners” and was a “breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely probity”.
A hearing was held earlier this month to consider Dr Tosounidis’ application to be restored to the medical register.
He claimed to the tribunal that a review of his cases had been sparked by other GI pathologists after he changed a diagnosis given to a biopsy specimen and said it was a “petty and vindictive move”.
Dr Tosounidis said he wanted to be reinstated to the medical register and had been using webinars to keep in touch with his speciality and said he had been shadowing a pathologist who has a lab in Greece.
However, Dr Tosounidis told the panel that he did not agree with the findings of the 2014 panel with regards to his professional performance being deficient.
He also claimed the expert called to give evidence had the same qualifications as him and argued they were not an expert and were not in a position to judge the quality of his work.
When questioned whether he accepted the panel’s finding with regards to his dishonesty, Dr Tosounidis said it was “such a petty thing” and that he again did not agree with the panel’s findings.
He also claimed the 2014 panel was a “cover up”.
The MPTS report of the hearing said: “Dr Tosounidis stated that he believes he should be restored to the register because he is a ‘successful’ pathologist, he likes his work and was involved in a very unfortunate situation at Cambridge.
“He reminded the tribunal that he had worked at other hospitals in the UK without problems.
“He stated that he is up-to-date in pathology through the lab of redacted in Greece.”
Carlo Breen, counsel representing GMC, argued Dr Tosounidis’ restoration application should be refused.
He said it was “quite clear” that Dr Tosounidis did not accept the findings of the 2014 panel and that his level of insight remained the same.
The MPTS report said: “In terms of remediation and risk of repetition, Mr Breen submitted that the matters are potentially remediable, albeit dishonesty can be difficult to remedy.
“He submitted, however, that there is no evidence of remediation. He submitted that there is a risk of repetition since Dr Tosounidis has no insight.”
Mr Breen added that the tribunal may also have concerns about things that have happened since the 2014 hearing, including a criminal conviction.
The report said Dr Tosounidis received a six month sentence suspended for three years for “defamation”.
It said: “With regards to his criminal record, Dr Tosounidis stated that he was jumped whilst at a BP gas station by four to five people in 2019. He stated that he wrote an email to BP and BP sacked a contractor and that contractor then made a civil case against him.”
Dr Tosounidis pushed back at the arguments put forward by Mr Breen and said it was “simply not true” that he had not shown insight.
The report said: “Dr Tosounidis submitted that he does have insight and that he is very sorry about patients who may have had to come back for further biopsy because of his case.
“He stated that this is a case whereby he went ‘by the book’ and then that was backlashed with the review of his work.
“Dr Tosounidis submitted that the tribunal should reinstate him to pathology because he has a lot to offer yet.
“He submitted that, even with all the ups and downs of his career, he is still a ‘successful’ pathologist and that ‘going from one failure to another is the meaning of success without loss of enthusiasm’.”
The panel said it noted Dr Tosounidis’ expressions of remorse, but said other than this there was a “shocking lack of evidence to demonstrate insight”.
The report said: “It is noted that Dr Tosounidis clearly does not accept the findings of the 2014 panel in relation to deficient professional performance or misconduct, and again alleged bias on the part of the 2014 panel.
“There is limited evidence to suggest that he has reflected upon the implications of his misconduct and deficient professional performance on others, including colleagues.”
The tribunal also highlighted that it had been 10 years since Dr Tosounidis had practised medicine.
While he said he had undertaken webinars and shadowed in a pathology lab in Greece, the tribunal said it had been given no documentary evidence in relation to this.
The tribunal also said Dr Tosounidis had refused to undertake a performance assessment, as he said he believed this “would be a devaluation of the Royal College qualifications” he had.
The panel said until Dr Tosounidis had fully addressed his misconduct and deficient professional performance, he would not be able to remediate his failings.
The tribunal concluded there was a risk Dr Tosounidis might repeat his misconduct.
The report said: “The tribunal was mindful of the serious failing that led to Dr Tosounidis’ erasure by the 2014 panel.
“Bearing in mind all of the evidence received, the tribunal was satisfied that Dr Tosounidis would still pose a risk to patients if he were permitted to return to unrestricted practice.
“As such, the tribunal concluded that restoration to the medical register would undermine patient safety.
“The tribunal took the view that public confidence in the profession would be seriously undermined by the restoration of Dr Tosoundis’ name to the medical register given his lack of insight and the tribunal’s findings in relation to remediation, together with the identified ongoing risk to patients.
“It follows that professional standards and conduct for members of the profession would not be upheld if Dr Tosounidis were permitted to be restored to the medical register at this point in time.”
Dr Tosounidis can apply again in the future to be reinstated to the medical register, however he will have to wait at least 12 months from the date of his last application before making a new one.