text: Dame Barbara Hakin, national director of commissioning operations for NHS England, is facing the threat of a new inquiry into claims she put patient safety at risk in a drive to meet targets . The most powerful woman in the NHS is facing the threat of a new inquiry into claims that she put patient safety at risk in a drive to meet targets, the Mail can reveal. Dame Barbara Hakin, national director of commissioning operations for NHS England, was accused of gagging a whistleblower who tried to warn about the impact of targets on ordinary patients. She was investigated by the General Medical Council, which concluded that there was no case to answer. However, it is now reviewing part of this decision and is appointing an independent expert to consider if the original investigation went ‘far enough’ in respect of patient safety. The GMC is concerned that there ‘may have been a material flaw’ in the previous decision, which could lead to the case being reopened. Dame Barbara, 57, a former Bradford GP who worked alongside Sir David Nicholson when he was NHS chief, was criticised for the gagging of whistleblower Gary Walker while she was in charge of East Midlands Strategic Health Authority. Mr Walker and other senior executives at the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (ULHT) claim that they had raised concerns with her that the enforcement of targets – implemented by the last Labour government – was endangering lives. This, they alleged, contributed to the trust being in the bottom 25 of the Department of Health’s mortality league tables and being compared to the scandal-hit Mid Staffs. They took their allegations to the GMC, the regulatory body for doctors, who investigated but concluded that there was no case to answer. But following complaints to the watchdog about its review, it is calling for an independent report. The GMC said the absence of such a report ‘may amount to a material flaw in the investigation’ that may have affected the decision. ‘There are concerns that the evidence gathered in the initial investigation did not go far enough in relation to allegations surrounding patient safety,’ it said. The GMC concluded that the review is ‘necessary for the protection of the public’. Dame Barbara, 57, a former GP, was criticised for the gagging of whistleblower Gary Walker (above), who tried to warn about the impact of targets, while she was in charge of East Midlands Strategic Health Authority . It added: ‘The specific question here is whether Dr Hakin’s fitness to practise could be called into question on the basis of her insistence that ULHT met the NHS targets no matter what. Further evidence from an external independent expert would have been useful to consider whether Dr Hakin’s actions were reasonable in all of the circumstances.’ Dame Barbara, who earns around £205,000 in her current role and was referred to as the most powerful woman in the NHS by the Health Service Journal, said the original allegations were ‘spurious and vexatious’. She alleged they stemmed from the ‘failure’ of the ULHT board to manage the hospital and it was a ‘campaign to discredit her’. Mr Walker said yesterday: ‘I am delighted the GMC is now considering that when Dr Hakin put pressure on me and my colleagues to hit targets it may have put the lives of patients at risk. ‘The NHS tried to gag me and prevent me from giving evidence to the GMC but what really happened is finally being exposed. ‘I hope now the GMC will do the right thing and seek to remove Dr Hakin’s licence.’ A GMC spokesman said it was ‘reviewing a decision made as part of our original investigation’ but added that Dame Barbara was not under investigation. Labour insisted that it was ‘always clear that NHS targets should not be implemented in a way that jeopardises the quality of patient care’.
target: Dame Barbara Hakin, 57, facing threat of a new inquiry over patient safety .
  Calls for inquiry into claims she risked lives in a drive to meet set targets .
  Accused of gagging whistleblower Gary Walker who tried to warn of risks .
  General Medical Council said no case to answer but reviewing its decision .