Consultant cannot explain no follow-up on tests

A former president of the Medical Council cannot explain why he failed to follow up on tests ordered for a man who later died from cancer.

Dr Colm Quigley, a consultant in general medicine, made the admission before a Medical Council fitness to practise inquiry where he faces nine allegations of poor professional performance.

Mr Quigley’s barrister said his client “cannot offer an explanation for why the tests didn’t take place”.

The deceased, identified as Patient X, was referred by his GP to Dr Quigley’s private practice at the Ely Hospital, Co Wexford, on two separate occasions more than one year apart.

Despite ordering a series of tests for the man, Dr Quigley failed to ensure that any of these were carried out.

No allegation has been made that Dr Quigley’s conduct caused or contributed to Patient X’s death.

His widow, Mrs A, made a complaint against Dr Quigley after he sent an appointment letter to her home after her husband’s death in which he stated: “I trust he is keeping well... I would be anxious to keep a watch on him.”

Dr Quigley’s barrister, Paul Anthony McDermott, told the inquiry yesterday: “Clearly mistakes were made, there was a breakdown in communication, tests were ordered and didn’t happen.”

Mr McDermott said Dr Quigley “respectfully denies” that his conduct amounts to poor profess-ional performance and said a paper-based system, which Dr Quigley used at his clinic, can lead to mistakes.

“The mere fact that mistakes occurred doesn’t in itself doesn’t mean that Dr Quigley’s performance was to a lesser standard of that of other doctors in Ireland,” said Mr McDermott.

The inquiry heard that Patient X had complained to his GP of pain in his ankles and feet, and was referred to Dr Quigley after blood tests showed him to be suffering from low sodium levels.

In a letter to Dr Quigley, Patient X’s GP said he was worried that there was an undiagnosed underlying problem present.

Patient X had been born with club feet, but following an operation at the age of 6 went on to lead a phys-ically active work life as a carpenter.

His wife told the inquiry that after the first appointment with Dr Quigley in Aug 2009, the couple felt her husband was in “very good hands”.

“Whatever was wrong with my husband would be investigated and we would come to some sort of conclusion,” she said.

Among the allegations levelled at Dr Quigley is that he failed to ensure all appropriate investigations were carried out in Aug 2009 and that he failed to recognise that these investigations had not been carried out when he met Patient X for a second time in Dec 2010.

He also faces allegations that he failed to ensure he had an adequate system for tracking investigations and that he failed to respond to the letters he received from Mrs A after her husband’s death.

Separately, Patient X, who was a smoker, had been diagnosed with peripheral vascular disease and was admitted to hospital in 2011 where his lower left leg was amputated.

When it was noticed that he was not recovering from the operation, he was diagnosed with irreversible lung cancer, from which he died on Apr 16, 2011.

The inquiry committee will hear closing submissions before retiring to consider a ruling today.