A former patient of disgraced neurosurgeon Sam Eljamel has expressed “utter shock” at NHS Tayside’s handling of questions during an inquiry into his wrongdoing, Press Association Scotland reported.
Sandra MacLeod, who was interim deputy chief executive of NHS Tayside from February 2024 to February 2026, appeared before the inquiry to answer questions about records management at the health board.
However, on Thursday evening NHS Tayside told the inquiry that many of the questions should instead have been directed to Margaret Dunning, who gave evidence the previous week.
Jamie Dawson KC, counsel to the inquiry, told chair Lord Weir that the development was “difficult to understand” because it appeared to contradict what the inquiry had previously been told about which witness should answer the questions.
“The information that we now have is that certain of those questions, it would appear, should have been posed to Margaret Dunning when she gave evidence last week, in particular questions 103 to 105,” Mr Dawson said.
He said Ms MacLeod could answer questions concerning health records, while issues involving data protection or freedom of information would have fallen under information governance and, at the relevant time, would have been Ms Dunning’s responsibility.
Mr Dawson said this was difficult to reconcile with the inquiry having been told that Ms Dunning had not answered some of those questions. He gave question 104, concerning the accuracy of medical records, as an example.
The episode had left the inquiry in “a degree of confusion”, he said, adding that “further investigations” would be carried out to address any gaps in the evidence.
During the questioning, Ms MacLeod frequently referred to written notes. It also emerged that other people had written the parts of her inquiry statement for which she was responsible.
Ms MacLeod said her role had been one of “executive oversight” and that the statement had been assembled from documents identified by subject-matter experts as relevant. When Mr Dawson asked whether all the answers she gave had been written by someone else, she confirmed that they had, while saying she had signed them off in her executive role.
She also explained that decisions about which people should answer questions in particular areas had been made by a group that included NHS Tayside executive medical director Dr James Cotton, who appeared before the inquiry earlier in the week.
Mr Dawson suggested that this meant Dr Cotton and the other committee members had decided that someone other than the person who had answered the questions should appear before the inquiry on those matters. Ms MacLeod said that was “a reasonable assumption”, but added that she did not have the facts in front of her.
Gillian Davidson, a former patient who attended the hearing, later told Press Association Scotland that she felt “utter shock”.
“The NHS Tayside representatives have all come to this so totally unprepared, all of them,” she said. “But this afternoon was the worst.”
Ms Davidson said Ms MacLeod appeared to have been sent to discuss matters she did not know about, but questioned why anyone would be sent in those circumstances to such an important hearing.
She said other former patients in the room had shared her reaction. Ms Davidson said she hoped the relevant people would be brought back to answer the questions themselves, adding that it appeared to her that “they’re hiding”.
She also said the representatives did not seem to grasp the seriousness of the inquiry, describing the issue as very serious because former patients did not want similar events to happen again.
An NHS Tayside spokesperson said it would not be appropriate to comment on evidence being considered while The Eljamel Inquiry was ongoing.
“We will continue to assist the Inquiry constructively and respectfully,” the spokesperson said.
The inquiry, chaired by Lord Weir, continues.
