The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

THE shock resignation of the Princess Margaret Hospital’s medical chief of staff yesterday is symptomatic of deeper discord between public health administrators and physicians, according to the Consultant Physicians Staff Association (CPSA) .

Just four months into his second term, MCS Dr James Johnson resigned with immediate effect after reaching an impasse with the Public Hospitals Authority over its decision to disregard recommendations on the appointment of two foreign doctors.

Dr Johnson’s recommendations were supported by the medical advisory committee; however, they were not adopted by Public Hospitals Authority (PHA) Managing Director Herbert Brown, who ultimately changed the proposal with the support of the PHA board.

Consultant Physicians Staff Association President Dr Locksley Munroe told The Tribune yesterday that Dr Johnson had the “absolute and unequivocal” support of the association, and that the body plans to draft a letter to the PHA board, Health Minister Dr Perry Gomez and Prime Minister Perry Christie.

Dr Munroe said: “We’re not happy that Dr Johnson resigned [yesterday], we understand why he resigned, he’s being treated in a very insulting manner. We’re trying to get some kind of action, conciliation to get back to normal and make sure the hospital is delivering the highest quality of care.

“It’s not just Herbert Brown but also the chairman of the board, they were very dismissive and demeaning of the input that Dr Johnson had. It’s the way the PHA, the so-called administrative side of it, is dealing with the people who deliver healthcare on the ground.

“There is a total disconnect,” he added.

The CPSA is one of nine healthcare and insurance industry bodies that forged an alliance earlier this year to develop an alternative to the government’s National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme, which they have continued to brand as “seriously flawed and unsustainable.”

The Medical Chief of Staff’s (MCS) position is a contractual peer-appointed post with a three-year term. Dr Johnson served from 2013 to 2016, and was reappointed for another term in July.

According to sources close to the matter, the issue stems from recommendations made over the recruitment and placement of two foreign ophthalmologists. Dr Johnson’s suggestion was for the doctors to start at a lower salary ranking, with the option for review and promotion after one or two years; however, this was disregarded for a higher ranking supported by Mr Brown.

When questioned yesterday, Dr Johnson said he decided to step down from the post after it became apparent that officials had already gone forward with the recruitment exercise despite months of back-and-forth discussion over the changes.

He forecast that the disparity in pay and procedure between the new recruits and previous local hires had the potential to create “big problems.”

“The managing director sought to change without consulting or informing me of the change,” Dr Johnson said. “Once I discovered that was the case I wrote to him explaining the oversight and some of the problems that might occur if we do that and requesting that he revert to the recommendation made by my office.

“I suppose he didn’t think it was a good idea, he wrote me back that he would still change my decision. So I wrote the board asking for their intervention. Unfortunately, I got a response that basically said the managing director was empowered by the board to make decisions – basically whatever he says goes.”

Dr Johnson added: “I was now put in the position where I had physicians coming into the hospital to work at a level that I didn’t agree for them to work.

“It put me in a terrible position, it’s either they need to change the decision or I need to withdraw myself from the process. I felt the whole process was dragging on too long. Those two doctors are still being recruited and are on their way here. You’re telling me let’s talk but not doing anything to reverse the decision.

“What makes matters worse is we brought another doctor on with similar qualifications in another area six months ago and he’s at a lower level, the level I wanted to employ these two as well. When they get to talking, I don’t want to be the one trying to explain the difference.”