Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1499 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

At 21.05 on 29 April, nursing staff on the ward received a phone call from the visiting medical officer, who instructed them to fast the patient. They thought that he had made a mistake, given that he had not seen the patient and undertaken a clinical assessment and that the patient had been admitted under the staff specialist and expected the staff specialist to perform the surgery. The VMO booked the patient on the subacute list. On the morning of 30 April 1999, the VMO instructed the operating rooms to call for the patient and the patient was taken to the operating theatre. As this was occurring the staff specialist, a team of nurses and anaesthetists were preparing to operate on the patient. In due course, the staff specialist contacted the ward to call for the patient, only to be informed that the patient was already in theatre undergoing surgery with the VMO. The operation was completed and the patient returned to the ward.

The only good news in this whole sorry saga is that there is no suggestion at this stage that the operation was not a success. It became apparent after the operation that the patient, having been anaesthetised, was unaware that the VMO had performed the surgery. The patient has also stated that he had not seen - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:

Mr Humphries: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

MR MOORE: It became apparent after the operation that the patient, having been anaesthetised, was unaware that the VMO had performed the surgery. The patient has also stated that he had not seen the VMO for a long time, but he had seen the staff specialist. The patient was informed by the hospital what had occurred. The patient and his family have written to the chief executive of the hospital expressing their unhappiness to discover that the operation was performed by the visiting medical officer. They have expressed their approval of the staff specialist and their gratitude to him for arranging to perform the surgery.

In response to these events, the chief executive officer and the director of the surgical SMT have over recent days taken care to ascertain all the relevant facts and have confirmed the details given above. Legal advice has been sought from the Government Solicitor. The VMO has been written to seeking an explanation as to what authority he had to act as he did, and he has responded. The VMO's response has not been satisfactory to the chief executive officer; I must say, nor has it been satisfactory to me.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .