A doctor has been labelled ‘dishonest’ after he carried on working as a locum anaesthetist despite being administratively struck off.

Dr Peter Kelsall had been working as a locum anaesthetist consultant at Noble’s Hospital when, on February 21, 2022, the General Medical Council (GMC) issued him with a fees notice.

The GMC sent Dr Kelsall the email informing him of his annual retention fee of £408, which was due on March 22, 2022.

A further reminder was sent a month after the payment was due and then a pending erasure notice a few weeks later.

After receiving no response, in March 2023 the GMC took the decision to administratively erase Dr Kelsall from the medical register.

It was only at this stage Dr Kelsall rang the GMC in an attempt to pay outstanding fees but he had already been erased from the medical register.

Dr Kelsall then made an application for restoration back on to the register shortly after and was required to provide his work history. He admitted in his application he had undertaken work after he had been erased.

A further restoration application was made in May 2024 in which Dr Kelsall claimed the previous dates of working were incorrect and an ‘oversight’.

However, Noble’s Hospital provided the shifts Dr Kelsall carried out which showed he actually worked at the hospital on several dates after his erasure as a locum.

In a letter to the GMC in May 2023, Dr Kelsall explained why he had covered shifts when he was not registered. He argued he thought the re-registration would be a quick process and ‘felt a huge obligation to cover the shift’ on the Easter Monday in 2022.

He went on to say: ‘Later in the week I had three 12-hour night shifts to cover and again in order to support my colleagues I took on the work, again expecting that my restoration would follow.

‘By the following Monday it was clear that the process was not going to be straight forward and so I discussed the matter with my clinical lead and I have not done any work since.

‘I realise that my action in working before I had secured re-registration was a serious and stupid decision. I feel embarrassed and stupid and shocked at what think is probably one of the worst decisions of my professional career.’

But the tribunal panel found that Dr Kelsall knew he was not registered while he carried out shifts at the hospital.

In the report it said: ‘Having established Dr Kelsall’s subjective state of knowledge and belief at the time, the Tribunal was satisfied that by the objective standards of ordinary decent people, his conduct would be considered dishonest.’

The tribunal found that, due to Dr Kelsall deliberately ignoring emails sent by the GMC and his subsequent dishonesty, his actions amounted to ‘serious misconduct’.

In deciding on whether to restore Dr Kelsall’s registration, the tribunal did find evidence that Dr Kelsall had insight into his dishonest conduct in admitting his mistakes but was concerned he then went on to criticise the registration process.

It said: ‘The Tribunal was satisfied Dr Kelsall had initially demonstrated partial insight into his actions. As time went on, however, he then appeared to minimise his actions.’

It added, there was no evidence Dr Kelsall had undertaken any remediation to address his misconduct.

It said: ‘The Tribunal was of the view that there was a distinct lack of acceptance and acknowledgement of his dishonesty or the potential reputational harm to Nobel’s Hospital in him knowingly undertaking shifts, and taking part in serious surgical procedures when he knew he had been administratively erased from the register.

‘The Tribunal determined that making a conscious decision to work those shifts in question was not an oversight, but a deliberate act, knowing them to be wrong.’

The tribunal also said there was no evidence Dr Kelsall had continued to keep up his medical skills in the three years since he was erased.

The tribunal said: ‘There was no evidence before this tribunal as to how Dr Kelsall has kept his knowledge and skills up to date since his erasure.

‘It considered that to be an anaesthetist there would not only be theoretical skills Dr Kelsall needed to keep up to date, but also practical skills.’

The tribunal refused Dr Kelsall’s application for restoration to the GMC register.

Afterwards, a spokesperson for Manx Care said: ‘We have robust processes in place to ensure that all doctors working within its services are appropriately registered with the GMC.

‘Comprehensive checks are carried out upon recruitment, including DBS checks, verification of references, and confirmation that a doctor’s GMC registration is appropriate for their role, including any relevant specialist registers.

‘Registration status is then monitored on an ongoing basis through quarterly checks against the GMC register, automatic notifications from the GMC if any concerns arise, and regular engagement with the GMC’s liaison officer.

‘Together, these measures provide multiple layers of assurance that doctors working within Manx Care meet the required professional registration standards at all times.’