Cancer patients are among dozens of individuals found to have been “harmed” after their diagnosis and treatment were delayed due to administrative failures at an NHS trust, an investigation has revealed.
A review of hundreds of gynaecology patients under the care of consultant Dr Jim Wolfe at Salford Royal Hospital in Greater Manchester in 2024 was prompted by concerns that necessary follow-ups were not carried out. The months-long audit uncovered that some women had not received letters about their treatment or their results had not been acted upon for conditions including cancer, concluding that many had been “harmed” as a result.
The Northern Care Alliance NHS Trust (NCA), which manages the hospital, has apologised for the “distress we’ve caused” and stated that those affected have been offered support and ongoing treatment plans. Sources confirmed that Dr Wolfe is still working at the trust, but NCA declined to comment on individual employee status.
The revelations come amid wider staff unrest over the trust’s gynaecology services, with concerns about patient safety, workforce pressures, and unsafe workloads. In December 2024, a separate NHS England review of NCA’s gynaecology services at Salford Royal Hospital found a “significant backlog” of more than 2,000 letters, including test results and referrals for treatment that had not been sent to GPs as required. This caused some patients’ treatment to be delayed by at least five months.
The review warned that the service was “heavily” reliant on agency doctors and that its ability to provide on-call doctors had been affected by “significant sickness absence and suspension” among its consultants. It also found the unit was failing to meet national standards to diagnose 75% of patients within 28 days and treat 85% within 62-day targets, “mostly” due to workforce issues. The reviewers did not specifically examine the trust’s audit of Dr Wolfe’s patients.
Since the NHS England review, staff have raised concerns with Rebecca Long Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford, about patient safety and the state of the department. She said: “I am extremely concerned by the findings emerging from the look-back review into gynaecology services. For many months now, staff have been raising serious concerns with me about patient safety, workforce pressures and a culture in which they do not feel listened to or supported.”
“Despite repeated assurances from the trust, clinicians and support staff continue to report unsafe workloads, rota gaps, cancelled clinics and a lack of transparency around decision-making. They have consistently told me that their concerns are not being properly heard.”
“It is imperative that the trust now carries out a full and transparent review of the safety concerns raised by staff, engages meaningfully with unions and frontline clinicians, and publishes the findings. Patient safety must come first. Rebuilding trust with the workforce is essential if services in Salford are to be stabilised and improved.”
The Independent understands staff reported to Ms Bailey that they felt “silenced” when raising such concerns and that patients have been affected by delays, including missed cancer diagnoses. One source working in the department said: “Everything really fell apart… There has been a loss of moral compass and a sense of what’s safe.” Another staff member added: “The gynaecology department at Salford Royal Hospital has always been sort of neglected, they didn't give us enough nurses, they don't give us new consultants, they don't really bother trying to improve our services at all. It comes to the point where you start asking for things, and they don't listen to you; it gets quite disheartening.”
When NCA launched its 2024 review, it asked clinicians within the department to review patients linked to one consultant. Sources confirmed the consultant identified was Dr Wolfe and that hundreds of patient cases had to be checked. NCA admitted that administrative delays, along with “other challenges”, had “created a delay in diagnosis and treatment for some patients”. It said all patients had been “appropriately followed up and managed”.
In damning board papers published in November, referencing the review, the trust admitted some patients had been harmed. It stated: “In the recent review of gynaecology services, patient harm was identified due to delays in diagnosis and treatment. All affected patients have been appropriately followed up and managed. A new leadership team is implementing improvements. The board is advised to request a report from the chief medical officer on how cultural issues across the service are being addressed more broadly.”
NCA’s audit included patients who did not need further treatment. The trust did not confirm how many patients were harmed; however, a source told The Independent it was more than 60 patients, and of those harmed, this included patients who had a delayed cancer diagnosis. No patients have died as a result of the delays, The Independent understands.
NCA said the review was also managed as a “Rapid Quality Review”, meaning the issue was escalated to NHS England and the Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board, and the trust’s actions were monitored by these bodies. Dr Rafik Bedair, NCA Chief Medical Officer, said: “The trust has followed all relevant NHS and regulatory policies and procedures during our review of these cases. As appropriate, we have been in touch with a group of patients to be honest about issues identified with their previous care.”
“We have offered these patients support and made sure there is a plan for any ongoing treatment or care needed. We’re truly sorry for any distress we’ve caused, and we remain committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of our patients and colleagues.”
NHS England confirmed it was satisfied with the measures the trust had put in place to address the problems and reduce the risk to patients. The Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board will monitor the trust going forward. The Care Quality Commission, the watchdog, said it was aware of the concerns that triggered the 2024 review and sought assurances from the trust that any issues relating to individual clinical practice had been dealt with in line with appropriate procedures.
