Aidan O'Brien apologies to patients at urology inquiry

Aidan O'Brien worked at the Southern Health Trust from 1992

A former consultant urologist at the Southern Health Trust has apologised to any patients who suffered harm as a consequence of any clinical decisions and shortcomings he may have made.

Aidan O'Brien was giving evidence on the final day of oral hearings at an inquiry examining the trust's handling of urology services prior to May 2020.

He became a consultant in Craigavon Area Hospital in July 1992.

His work is at the centre of the inquiry.

The inquiry was established in 2021 and is examining the trust's handling of urology services prior to May 2020.

In his final remarks at the inquiry, Mr O'Brien said it was "such a pity that we weren't able to provide an even better service to more people, at least to the extent that we could ensure their safety.

"And in so far as we haven't been able to do that and particularly in so far as I haven't been able to do that, I regret that very, very much."

He said as someone who had devoted his life to the care of patients that it had "borne heavily" on him when outcomes were not what they should be.

"I so regret and apologise to any patients that have suffered harm as a consequence of any clinical decisions and shortcomings that I may have," he said.

• Urology services inadequate in NI, says consultant

• Public inquiry ordered into NI urology consultant

The inquiry heard that it had received 650,000 pages of written evidence and heard from 75 witnesses over a 95-day period which took over two years.

The chairwoman, Christine Smith KC, said the inquiry would still be accepting written evidence until 31 May 2024 and that core participants would have an opportunity for final oral submissions in June before she had the "somewhat daunting" task of writing a report, but she would complete it as "expeditiously as possible".

Earlier during Friday's hearing, Mr O'Brien told the inquiry that he completely refuted and rebutted the allegation or the inference that he inappropriately accessed a patient's records in order to advance an argument before the inquiry.

The inquiry heard that Mr O'Brien had discovered three letters relating to a patient, known as patient 139, at home after he had told the trust that he had no further NHS records at his home.

Mr Wolfe KC, lead counsel for the inquiry said that the trust, through its legal advisors, has sent the inquiry a narrative setting out investigations it carried out in association with Mr O'Brien's former secretary Noeleen Elliott.

Mr O'Brien worked at Craigavon Area Hospital before his retirement in July 2020

He said that the trust had discovered that Mrs Elliott had accessed the records of patient 139 on two occasions and made a print request.

The inquiry heard the trust could not say which documents were printed and when they put what they had found to her she had said that was concerned that any error on her part as a secretary may have caused difficulty for this patient.

The inquiry heard that she had explained nobody had asked her to carry out this task and that she hadn't shared the material with anyone else.

Mr O'Brien told the inquiry that when he became aware of this last Thursday, he contacted Mrs Elliott because he was entirely unaware that she had been under investigation. He said she gave him the same explanation.

He said she was not even able to recall to him who patient 139 was or realised the significance in relation to these three letters.

'Just a coincidence'

When asked by Mr Wolfe KC: "Did you ever engage with Mrs Elliott to inappropriately access the medical records of patient 139 in order to advance your cause before this inquiry?"

Mr O'Brien replied: "Absolutely not."

Mr Wolfe asked if he regarded it "simply as an unhelpful coincidence" that the letters associated with patient 139, which he had an interest in for the purposes of the inquiry and which should have been handed back to the trust four years ago, might also have been in the interest of Mrs Elliott?

Mr O'Brien said he did not commission these records and added: "I completely refute and rebut the allegation or the inference that was even a possibility because I know how significant an issue that is, and she knows how significant an issue that is.

"It's just a coincidence.

"I don't have any other explanation for it.

"The interesting thing is I asked her how is it that you were interested in [patient] 139 as he was no longer my patient and she mentioned something about nothing that there had been a particular new review clinic code or something of that nature and she had looked at a sample of patients to see had she followed through on them," Mr O'Brien said.

The chairwoman, Ms Smith KC concluded by saying that she was "encouraged that neither the trust nor the department have awaited the outcome of the inquiry and its recommendations in order to take what they have learned during the course of their work to seek to improve matters for patients and staff".