Oxford-educated junior doctor suspended for moonlighting at a private cosmetic surgery clinic while signed off sick from his £35,000-a-year job is allowed back at the NHS

An Oxford-educated junior doctor suspended after moonlighting at a private cosmetic surgery while signed off sick from his £35,000-a-year job has been allowed back to the NHS.

Dr Daniel Coventry, 34, was supposed to be off work at the taxpayer’s expense with a suspected virus but instead he was offering facial fillers, thread facelifts and anti-wrinkle jabs at a private clinic in Brighton.

He was reported to his work at Worthing Hospital in West Sussex after he was caught on social media and concerns had been raised with the amount of sick leave he was taking.

But now he has been allowed back into the NHS after apologising for his ‘arrogant’ and ‘idiotic behaviour’ despite being accused of being a ‘maverick doctor’ by the General Medical Council.

During the investigation, Coventry claimed there was ‘no conflict of interest’ in doing private work while off sick and said he was ‘not rostered’ to work NHS shifts. 

He subsequently left his job before the GMC were able to give him a final written warning.

In September last year, however, Coventry was suspended from medical practice for six months after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

But last month at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, his suspension was revoked and he was allowed to return to unrestricted medical practise after he apologised for his attitude and confessed to blaming his behaviour on NHS ‘failings’.

The General Medical Council had earlier called for him to remain suspended citing previous evidence that it was up to his private patients to decide if he should treat them whenever he was ill at work.

In a statement Coventry said he now accepted ‘not having a leg to stand on’ at the 2023 hearing and vowed in future to be ‘toeing the line no matter what the policy is.’ He also said he would ‘err on the side of caution’ if he was unwell at work in future and follow hospital rules on treating patients.

He explained: ‘My attitude during that hearing was overly defensive and on reflection I am quite embarrassed about this. I think that the depth to which I value being a doctor led to an automatic desire to bat away criticism of my behaviour rather than accept responsibility for what is such an obvious error of judgement.

‘During that hearing I focused too much on my perception of the failures of the trust and not enough on my personal failure to familiarise myself with the rules of the trust. Whilst I believe that the trust could have done more to support me, I also believe that I should have done more to support myself and absolutely did bear the responsibility to do so.’

He added: ‘The judgment was the beginning of my realisation that what I had done was serious and that labelling it merely a mistake from lack of knowledge of the rule was insufficient to remedy the situation.

‘It took handing down the judgment for me to appreciate just how poor my behaviour had been. In order to increase my insight and learn from this experience, I have read the panel’s determination multiple times with a much less defensive attitude.

‘The suspension has provided an opportunity for significant personal growth. Professionalism encompasses more than the skill to diagnose and treat. It includes trustworthiness. 

‘To be trustworthy requires a full understanding of the framework of the hospital setting, of rules and regulations, and merely not being aware of a regulation is no excuse for breaking it.

‘I can sorely say I fell short of the professional standards of a doctor. Full insight means understanding how you affected other people.’

He said he had completed a free online ‘Medical Professionalism’ course to give him a ‘better understanding’ of dishonesty but did not undertake a specific ethics course as he said these were ‘in relation to patients.’

The moonlighting occurred over a six period between April and October 2018 just a year after Coventry joined the Western Sussex NHS Trust.

Concerns were raised that same year about the amount of time hey was taking off and a consultant surgeon explain the HR procedures to him and he was advised to access the hospital’s ‘StaffNet’ website to read the Trust’s policies regarding sick leave.

But following a worsening of Coventry’s sickness absences a new probe began in 2019.

Investigators found posts on social media showing he had undertaken private aesthetic work at ‘A New You’ clinic in Brighton where face lifts cost up to £8,000 and tummy tucks cost up to £6,000.

In December of that year he was found guilty of gross misconduct at an internal disciplinary hearing but he had already left the trust.

Lawyer for the General Medical Council Ms Imaan Osman said: ‘Dr Coventry has not accepted that his actions in undertaking private work whilst on sick leave from the Trust were dishonest. Rather his answers focused on his better understanding of dishonesty.

‘He maintains he had not wilfully deceived anyone and says his behaviour and attitude at the 2023 Tribunal was wrong in relation to his understanding of dishonesty, rather than accepting that his actions were dishonest. 

He previously believed himself to be a ‘maverick doctor’ but his reflections on the running of a hospital are not specifically relevant to his dishonesty or remediation of misconduct.

‘In stating that he needs to be more organised and professional, Dr Coventry sought to use poor organisation to excuse his dishonest conduct. 

He blamed the lack of induction at the Trust for his failure to read the policies and he had not made reference to, or admitted, dishonesty once.

‘It is a concern to the GMC that the course completed by Dr Coventry has not addressed ethics and most importantly, dishonesty. 

‘His evidence relating to treating patients when sick raised concerns. Dr Coventry’s suggestion that he would allow private patients to decide whether they would like to be treated by when he was unwell himself to be improper.

‘He has demonstrated a lack of insight in suggesting that he now thinks ‘more carefully about things that seem OK.’

But Coventry’s father Stuart who represented him at the hearing said: ‘He is desperate to get back into NHS employment. He has fully acknowledged his specific wrongdoing and dishonesty, acknowledged the potential for wider issues and has undertaken remediation through study and introspection to ensure that there is no repetition.

‘He has acknowledged that being a good doctor goes well beyond clinical care and to a holistic understanding of professionalism. The greatest lesson for Dr Coventry had been the whole Tribunal process and the evidence of his wrongdoing laid bare.

‘He has recognised the root of the behaviours and his understanding of honesty and dishonesty in fact goes far deeper than just acceptance because he now understands someone can be dishonest in the absence of wilful deceit.

‘Dr Coventry now understands that he needs to be ‘extra vigilant’ about his behaviour and its impact because one does not have to been wilfully deceitful to be dishonest. 

‘The GMC’s reference to Dr Coventry believing himself to be a ‘maverick doctor’ has been lost in translation. He was trying to make a point about his understanding of rules during his childhood and growing up, not presently.’

In revoking the suspension MPTS chairman Mrs Zeenat Islam said: ‘The Tribunal did not accept the GMC’s submission that Dr Coventry had not accepted that he behaved dishonestly. 

‘It was satisfied Dr Coventry had reflected on the 2023 Tribunal’s findings in depth, accepted his misconduct and had taken steps to understand why his behaviour was dishonest.

‘His reflections about not needing to be ‘wilfully deceitful’ to be dishonest were an accurate reflection of the difference between a lay and a legal definition of dishonesty. 

‘He made reference to his previous ‘arrogance’, said his behaviour was ‘idiotic’ and candidly accepted that on reflection that he ‘did not have a leg to stand on’.

‘He appreciates a good doctor is not just a competent clinician, but a professional who understands their role, the impact of their actions on others and the needs to maintain trust and confidence in the profession. He has taken responsibility for his actions and shown a genuine willingness to reflect on and remediate his misconduct.’