There was one person who was notable for his absence as the Independent Neurology Inquiry published its report — Dr Michael Watt.
ince the concerns about his clinical practice emerged, he has all but vanished.
No traces of his existence can be found on the internet, save for multiple stories detailing the harm he has caused to patients.
One photograph of the shamed former medic has come to light, but other than that the public is very much dependent on the accounts of former patients to shed light on the person behind the scandal.
My husband is one of those former patients, and that is how I came to have an unforgettable encounter with Dr Michael Watt.
It is an experience that I will never forget.
Reading through the accounts from other patients in the report, I recognised the brash, cavalier attitude that left me stunned when I met him.
In 2014, at the age of 36, my husband had a stroke, followed by a series of mini-strokes.
While the neurology inquiry examined governance issues relating to Dr Watt, it was failings in the neurology service in general that brought us before the now disgraced doctor.
Less than an hour after displaying FAST symptoms one morning, my husband was diagnosed and treated with thrombolysis by an on-call doctor.
We were subsequently told by a brusque consultant that he had not had a stroke, only for them to return the following day to say scans had shown damage to his brain caused by a blood clot.
The very same doctor refused to diagnose his subsequent mini-strokes, despite not actually seeing or speaking to my husband, meaning that he was not eligible for closure of the hole in his heart we believed was putting him at serious risk.
In a desperate attempt to get treatment, we were forced to pay to see a cardiologist privately who referred us to Dr Watt.
Six years on, I can still vividly remember the consultation.
He agreed that my husband was suffering from multiple mini-strokes and that surgery to repair the hole in his heart was necessary to stop any further clots travelling to his brain.
But his comments about a patient who had undergone the procedure the previous week made my blood run cold.
Laughing, he said: “A guy the same age as you had the surgery last week, but a clot pinged off and went to his brain and he’s been left a vegetable.
“He’ll be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, but I suppose you should have the operation.”
Given my many years covering the subject of health, I was astounded a consultant was so inappropriate and openly callous.
To make the comment in the first place was unbelievable. To laugh while saying it seemed almost surreal.
Next, we had to speak to a cardiac surgeon who was clearly not in favour of performing the operation.
We were asked to leave the room to allow him to discuss my husband’s case with Dr Watt.
When we returned minutes later, the surgeon begrudgingly agreed to go ahead with the hole closure, very clearly at the insistence of Dr Watt.
The surgeon almost had his head in his hands as he said would operate.
None of this filled me with confidence and, needless to say, I was petrified as, just a few weeks later, I waited for the news that my husband had come safely through the surgery.
Dr Watt’s words, and his bizarre demeanour as he described the devastation wreaked on another patient, were all I could think about.
To my eternal relief, my husband survived the operation unharmed and was even able to make me a cup of tea when we returned home that evening.
Not only that, but it transpired the hole in his heart was much larger than doctors had realised.
We were told during a review appointment that a clot had been found close to the hole by the cardiac surgeon.
If it had dislodged, there is no doubt that it would have caused a potentially catastrophic stroke, either killing my husband or, at the very least, leaving him profoundly disabled.
So, while the accounts of reckless and uncaring comments made by Dr Watt rang a bell with me, I believe he saved my husband’s life.
That is, of course, not to take away from the immeasurable harm he has caused.
His comments to me and my husband added to the trauma of a loved one going through potentially life-changing surgery.
Our encounter with Dr Watt means my husband was also part of the patient recall, and I was troubled to learn that the consultant reviewing my husband’s case told him Dr Watt had done nothing wrong.
He put the whole process down to a “media witch hunt”.
Of course, we now know that is far from the truth, and we also know from the inquiry report that some colleagues of Dr Watt appeared blind to the failings in his work.
This was reflected during my husband’s recall appointment.
The inquiry report also highlighted the fact that some doctors did not feel comfortable or able to raise concerns about Dr Watt, and even when they did, the official response was woefully inadequate.
As for my experience of Dr Watt, I will always wonder if the very positive outcome we enjoyed was down to a very measured assessment of my husband’s condition or just a matter of sheer luck.
The alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.