‘I would have operated if girl was a private patient’

A top paediatric consultant who delegated a child’s operation to another surgeon told a medical inquiry into why the child had the wrong surgery first that he would have operated on her himself if he had known she was a private patient.

“I was not aware of the status at all,” said Prof Martin Corbally, who was a consultant in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin at the time of the mix-up.

The two-year-old ended up having two operations on her mouth on the same day in 2010 after the wrong procedure was carried out first.

Known only as Patient X, the toddler was supposed to have an operation to release skin on her upper lip but ended up having a tongue tie release procedure she did not need first.

“I was never advised the child was private,” Prof Corbally told the third day of the fitness to practise inquiry.

“Usually, the theatre staff would contact the consultant and say the child was a private patient.”

The Medical Council is considering allegations of poor professional performance against him. It is alleged that he delegated Patient X’s surgery to Dr Farhan Tareen in circumstances where he failed to communicate adequately or at all to Dr Tareen the procedure to be performed.

It is further alleged he incorrectly described the procedure required on the girl’s medical records and incorrectly recorded the child’s diagnosis in the hospital admissions card.

Speaking by video link from Bahrain, where he is chief of staff of a hospital, he said: “If I was aware the patient was private I would have done the procedure myself. I was not aware of the status at all.”

He said normally he would, if possible, do the procedure himself if it was a private patient.

Asked by Medical Council solicitor JP McDowell if he was suggesting that if a patient was private that was why a consultant would carry out the surgery, Prof Corbally said normally you would try to carry out the operation yourself for the private patient.

He said he had asked Dr Tareen to do the tongue tie operation but if he was aware it was a private patient then he would have operated on Patient X himself and Dr Tareen would have done the “procedure on the non-private patient”.

Prof Corbally explained there was a contract to “see private patients privately and to treat them privately”.

He did not believe the circumcision surgery he carried out when Dr Tareen was operating on Patient X was a private patient.

The inquiry also heard yesterday that distinction between public and private patients comes up on the operating theatre lists in certain hospitals, but such a designation is not made in Our Lady’s.

Prof Corbally said that on the day of Patient X’s operation, Apr 30, 2010, he had 10 patients on the theatre list but none were major cases.

“It was particularly busy that day. I was under a lot of pressure to get the list done.”

He said the list was running late because he had decided to go to the intensive care unit first to see a critically ill child.

He said the confusion in the case arose because the hospital computer system did not allow any change or deviation, the parents’ concerns on the day were not conveyed to him during the list, and the surgical pause where all members of the theatre team pause and discuss the impending surgery was not properly implemented or completed on the day.

The inquiry has adjourned and will resume again on Oct .