A DOCTOR today spoke of her three years of hell before being cleared of switching patients' tissue samples to cover up a breast cancer blunder.

Dinah Parums, 47, of Poundbury, Dorchester, was accused of a cancer cell switch after her diagnosis led a healthy woman to suffer an unnecessary mastectomy.

The pathologist was alleged to have used the samples from a real cancer sufferer in a 'premediated' plot to hide her mistake.

The patient had her right breast removed and underwent reconstructive surgery at Dorset County Hospital in May 2002.

But a conduct committee hearing of the General Medical Council in London yesterday cleared Dr Parums of switching the samples.

They also cleared Dr Parums, who denied the charges, of serious professional misconduct, after deciding that 'errors do take place'.

Dr Parums, who resigned as a pathologist from West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust in September 2003, told the Echo: "I am relieved and pleased to have been exonerated, although I never doubted my innocence.

"The last few years have been hell - having doubts surround my career has been the most awful ordeal.

"The worst thing about all this has been the effect on my family, friends and neighbours living in Poundbury who have followed the case.

"They have been extremely supportive, which I appreciate, through these difficult times.

"It has been hard not being able to talk to anyone about the case, because of patient confidentiality, but I'm pleased people can now see I have been cleared.

"Putting patients first and working for the community in West Dorset has always been my number one priority and I hope people can now see that."

Dr Parums, now working for a cancer research organisation, added: "A lot of issues have come out from this hearing which I believe need looking at but I don't particularly want to dwell on the past now.

"I'm going to spend the next few days with my family and then hope to continue working in an area I care deeply about."

The hearing was told Dr Parums had been checking two suspect lumps that were removed from a woman's breast in early 2002 when the mistake was made.

The patient, in her 50s and known as Mrs W, was eventually informed of the blunder in February 2003.

Dr Parums's colleague, pathologist Dr Khalid Jaber, later discovered the tissue had no malignant cells and reported the discrepancy.

Dr Parums, an expert in experimental pathology, wrote a supplementary report in a bid to prove Mrs W had ductal cancer and needed the surgery.

She admitted she had 'overcalled' her original analysis and changed her diagnosis to lobular cancer.

Dr Jaber sent the tissue samples she used away for DNA testing. An expert then discovered the single crucial sample confirming Dr Parums' diagnosis was actually tissue from another of her patients.

Dr Parums told the hearing the samples must have been switched by someone trying to discredit her and she would never have carried out the cover up.

Dr Parums said: "To do such a thing would be career suicide. This is not a possibility."

Issuing their findings, GMC conduct committee chairman Mrs Sheila Hewitt told Dr Parums: "The panel has concluded that the evidence led by the GMC has fallen short of the necessary standard which could justify proof of the allegations advanced against you.

"You have accepted that you over-called the case. The panel recognises that diagnostic errors do take place.

"The panel has concluded that the nature of the misdiagnoses in Mrs W's case were both inappropriate and not in her best interests.

"The panel has concluded that the totally of the facts proved would be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct.

"The panel therefore finds you not guilty of serious professional misconduct."

Former patient Mrs W who attended the hearing fought back tears as the pathologist was cleared.

A spokesman for West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust today said no further investigations on the case were planned.

She said: "The GMC hearing confirmed that a diagnostic error was made by Dr Parums. We deeply regret the distress caused to the patient affected.

"Current laboratory practices mean that we track every sample that comes through the labs very effectively.

"We also have arrangements for seeking and logging second opinions from other pathologists and participate in external quality assurance schemes.

"In addition, we are about to further increase quality control by referring a random sample of routine work to ensure standards remain high."

She added: "We are fortunate to have a dedicated and hard working team of staff in our pathology department.

"We have confidence in the skills of our staff and in our checking procedures."