A SURGEON who sparked concern after two of his patients died has been told to re-train, as part of conditions imposed on his registration.
Hurais Syed, 51, must obtain the services of a mentor and get the mentor's approval as to the suitability of any post for which he may consider applying, the General Medical Council ruled.
He came to attention after two pensioners died when he was a consultant at Dewsbury District Hospital.
Syed was charged with the manslaughter of 78-year-old Gladys Allen, of Liversedge, but cleared at Leeds Crown Court.
A fitness to practise panel in London said his work must be supervised by a urologist holding a consultant post in the NHS and he must restrict his work to endoscopic and minor open surgery.
Syed, now of Acton, west London, was a locum consultant urology surgeon at Dewsbury from December 1997 until February 2000, when he was suspended pending a review of his performance.
The fitness to practise panel was told his surgical skills are "highly flawed and likely to produce serious haemorrhaging".
He failed to keep accurate and contemporary records, had limited communication skills, used inappropriate techniques and there were questions over his ability to perform procedures, the panel was told.
Syed graduated in Karachi, Pakistan, in 1978 and gained further experience in Saudi Arabia before coming to Britain.
But Craig Ferguson, for the GMC, said: "Mr Syed appears to have had no structured surgical training at all.
"The urological training he had in the UK was not in a recognised training post.
"His experience in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had not prepared him adequately for the responsibilities of a consultant urologist in the UK in the late '90s."
He added: "It would appear that Mr Syed is a caring and compassionate doctor - where appropriate he spends considerable time talking to you.
"However, perhaps because of the number of patients he is responsible for, there are often occasions when he appears rushed and without a considered care plan for a patient."
Syed denied that his fitness to practise was impaired because of deficient professional performance, but the panel found that it was.
It said it took into account that he had been out of practice for six years and had acknowledged he would be unable to resume without retraining.
If he returned to unrestricted practice at this time, he would pose a potential risk of harm to patients, it said.