Oldham Doctor Struck Off Following Major Surgical Mistake 2026

Key Points

• Dr Yasser Adly Abdel Rahman, an NHS locum surgeon from Egypt, has been permanently struck off the medical register following a botched emergency bowel operation at Royal Oldham Hospital in August 2020.
• The tribunal heard the surgeon wrongly connected the small intestine to the stomach, creating a “closed loop” that caused bowel contents to circulate back into the stomach, leaving the patient in “uncontrollable pain” for three weeks.
• An expert witness described the procedure as “not known to man” and “as bad as it gets” for a consultant surgeon, stating it was “not compatible with life” and would have led directly to the patient’s death without corrective surgery.
• Dr Rahman failed to respond to warning signs, told the patient’s family the surgery was successful despite concerns, and did not attend the misconduct hearing, claiming he was made a “scapegoat” in a “witch hunt”.
• The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found he breached a previous work restriction order by taking a locum post in Ireland in 2022, an “aggravating” factor in the decision to erase him from the register.
• The patient’s life was saved only when another surgeon, Mr Rate, performed a second operation to correct the error.

Oldham (Manchester Mirror) August 04, 2026 – Dr Yasser Adly Abdel Rahman, an NHS locum consultant general and colorectal surgeon, has been permanently struck off the medical register following a catastrophic surgical error at Royal uk/local/oldham/">Oldham Hospital that left a young male patient in life-threatening condition. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) sitting in Manchester concluded last month that Dr Rahman’s misconduct was “fundamentally incompatible with continued registration” and ordered his erasure from the register, with an immediate suspension imposed in case he appeals.

The incident occurred on 25 August 2020, when Dr Rahman, who had qualified in 1993 from Ain Shams University in Cairo, Egypt, was working as a locum at the hospital having been there for only “a few days”. He performed a four-hour emergency operation on a patient, referred to as Patient A, who had a tumour in his small bowel and a “perforated necrotic loop of small bowel”.

What surgical error did Dr Rahman commit during the operation?

During the procedure, Dr Rahman cut the small bowel, leaving two ends, and then carried out what he described as a gastrojejunostomy to connect the intestine to the stomach to “maintain digestive/bowel continuity”. However, the tribunal heard he had connected the wrong part of the small intestine to the stomach. This critical error meant the contents of the patient’s bowel had “nowhere to go apart from back into the stomach in a circular fashion”, creating what was described as a “closed loop”.

As reported by multiple outlets covering the tribunal, this meant the patient could not pass bowel movements for three weeks and was left in “uncontrollable pain”. The tribunal also heard that another section of the small bowel had been left lying in the abdomen, which expert witness Mr Anthony Blower, a consultant general and colorectal surgeon acting for the General Medical Council (GMC), described as “totally inappropriate”, “unconventional” and “extremely wrong”.

How did the medical expert describe the surgeon’s error?

Mr Blower, giving evidence at the tribunal, stated that the procedure carried out by Dr Rahman was “at the extreme end of surgical error” and was “as bad as it gets” for a consultant surgeon. In a statement that has been widely reported, Mr Blower said the procedure was “not known to man” and would have “led directly to the patient’s death” if it had been left uncorrected.

He added:

“Dr Abdel Rahman’s procedure can at best be described as bizarre and was a totally unconventional operation that is not compatible with life. Patient A would have died in the post-operative period if it was not for the intervention of Mr Rate.”

Mr Rate, another surgeon, performed a second operation that corrected the error and saved the patient’s life.

What was the surgeon’s response to concerns after the operation?

The tribunal found that Dr Rahman failed to respond to warning signs that the surgery had not been successful. Despite the patient reporting escalating pain and concerns being expressed by the patient’s parents and other medics, Dr Rahman at no time considered that something may have gone wrong surgically. Instead, he wrongly told the patient’s family that the operation had been a success.

Dr Rahman did not attend the misconduct hearing and was not legally represented. In written submissions, he claimed he had been made a “scapegoat” after a “witch hunt” following the operation. The tribunal heard he never apologised or admitted his mistake.

Why was the surgeon’s breach of work restrictions considered aggravating?

The MPTS had imposed an order restricting Dr Rahman’s work as a doctor in July 2021, following the initial findings. However, the tribunal found that Rahman broke the conditions of this order when he applied for and secured a job as a locum at Affidea Express Care Clinic in Ireland in February 2022.

This breach of the order was ruled an “aggravating” feature, adding to already “significant” errors in surgery and post-operative care. The tribunal concluded that Dr Rahman’s fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct, leading to the decision to strike him off permanently.

Background of the particular development

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is the independent tribunal service for doctors in the UK, running hearings that make decisions about whether doctors are fit to practise. It operates under the General Medical Council (GMC), which is the regulatory body for doctors in the UK. When serious concerns are raised about a doctor’s conduct, performance or health, the GMC can refer cases to the MPTS, which has the power to impose sanctions including warnings, conditions on practice, suspension, or erasure from the medical register.

Dr Rahman qualified as a doctor in 1993 from Ain Shams University in Cairo, Egypt, and was working as a locum consultant general and colorectal surgeon at Royal Oldham Hospital at the time of the incident. Locum doctors are temporary staff who fill gaps in hospital rotas, and the tribunal noted he had been at the hospital for only “a few days” before performing the emergency operation.

The case has drawn significant attention due to the severity of the surgical error and the expert witness’s description of it as “not known to man”. The MPTS decision to erase Dr Rahman from the register represents one of the most serious sanctions available, reserved for cases where misconduct is deemed fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as a doctor.

Prediction: How this development can affect patients and the medical profession

This case is likely to have several implications for patients, healthcare providers and the medical profession. For patients, the public nature of the tribunal findings may reinforce the importance of the regulatory system in holding doctors accountable for serious errors, though it may also raise concerns about patient safety in emergency surgical settings.

For NHS trusts and hospitals, the case highlights the critical importance of robust oversight and support systems for locum doctors, particularly those who may be unfamiliar with local protocols and teams. The fact that Dr Rahman had been at the hospital for only “a few days” before performing complex emergency surgery may prompt reviews of how locum consultants are integrated and supervised.

For the medical profession, the severe language used by the expert witness and the MPTS’s decision to impose the ultimate sanction of erasure sends a clear message about the standards expected of consultant surgeons. The ruling that Dr Rahman’s failure to recognise and respond to post-operative warning signs constituted misconduct may reinforce the importance of post-operative monitoring and the duty to investigate concerns raised by patients and colleagues.

The breach of the work restriction order by taking a post in Ireland also underscores the challenges of enforcing UK medical regulations across borders, and may prompt discussions about information-sharing between regulatory bodies in different jurisdictions.

For aspiring and practising surgeons, the case serves as a stark reminder of the serious consequences that can follow from fundamental surgical errors and failures in post-operative care, and may reinforce the importance of seeking second opinions and responding appropriately when outcomes do not match expectations.