Suspended doctor 'was popular GP', insists colleague
A PORT Talbot doctor who amended notes from a patient's medical record has been described as "an extremely well thought of and popular GP" by a colleague.
Dr Venkata Subramanyam Subbu was last week found to have acted dishonestly by a tribunal.
A panel at the hearing determined that Dr Subbu's fitness to practise was impaired and suspended him for six months.
Practice nurse Adele Jones said staff and patients would welcome Dr Subbu back with open arms.
"Despite the findings of the panel, Dr Subbu remains an extremely well thought of, and popular GP," she said.
"In my opinion — which I submitted to the tribunal — Dr Subbu is a kind and caring doctor who has always put the welfare of patients before personal considerations.
"I should also say that I am deeply ashamed that this fundamentally good and upright man apparently felt unable to seek support and objective advice from his colleagues. Had this been available to him, I believe none of this would have happened.
"In conclusion I should say that most people who work here, including me, and all the patients who have spoken to me, are looking forward to his return in six months' time."
The Medical Practitioners' Tribunal Service heard evidence from Owain Thomas, on behalf of Dr Subbu, who told the panel he had a "long, distinguished career" of 35 years in medicine.
Mr Thomas said Dr Subbu had been "frightened" when he was sent a letter informing him of a potential clinical negligence claim against him and "acted in a manner which was completely out of character".
Ms Jones, who wished to point out that she did not have any involvement with the case and did not report Dr Subbu to the General Medical Council, said she agreed with this.
"I believe Mr Owain Thomas's submission for Dr Subbu that he panicked and acted completely out of character to be absolutely correct," she said.
At the hearing, panel chairman professor Denis McDevitt said on receipt of this letter that Dr Subbu checked the notes that the practice nurse had entered into Patient A's medical records and "considered that they were inadequate".
Professor McDevitt said: "On six separate occasions, between 13 October and 13 November 2009, you amended the original entries."
In his determination, Professor McDevitt, said: "The panel is satisfied that your actions amount to misconduct and that the misconduct is serious."