Surgeon faces probe over breast cancer treatment
The woman, whose grandmother also died of cancer, passed away in Sept 2012 despite undergoing a mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiography.
Her consultant breast surgeon is facing allegations that he failed to carry out a full investigation on the woman, known only as Ms K.
A Medical Council fitness to practise inquiry has heard the consultant initially decided not to carry out a mammogram on her and instead opted for a ultrasound and asked her to return to see him three months later.
The consultant is on sick leave from work and can only be identified as Dr C, upon the direction of the inquiry.
It heard that Ms K, who was aged 40 at the time, was referred to the surgeon by her GP in Jul 2007 after complaining of lumps in her left breast.
Before seeing Dr C in August, she failed to attend two earlier appointments and also failed to attend a follow-up appointment made for her in Dec 2007.
However, after being sent for a mammogram and biopsy by Dr C in Jun 2008, she was found to have breast cancer.
Under the direction of a different breast surgeon, she underwent a mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and reconstruction surgery at a Dublin hospital but died in Sept 2012.
Before she passed away, Ms K made a complaint to the Medical Council which led to the case being taken against Dr C.
He faces six allegations of professional misconduct and poor professional performance, including that he failed to consider Ms K’s medical condition, that he failed to carry out an adequate examination, that he failed to refer her to a specialist, and that he failed to arrange for an adequate follow up.
He is also accused of carrying out an ultrasound on Ms K when he was not qualified to do so.
He denies that his treatment of the woman amounts to professional misconduct. At the opening of the inquiry, he extended his condolences to Ms K’s family through his barrister.
During the hearing, Ms K’s GP told the inquiry that the woman had swelling in her breast for eight months prior to seeing him but had put the matter “on the long finger”. He could not find anything definite when he examined Ms K in July 2007, but referred her on to Dr C because of her concerns over the matter.
The GP agreed under cross-examination from Dr C’s barrister, Cathal Murphy, that Ms K was difficult to deal with at times and that he may not have referred Ms K on had it been another patient.
He told how following her diagnosis with cancer she phoned him and told him of her worries for the future, including the fate of her young daughter and her will.
The GP told the inquiry he had never experienced problems with the care provided by Dr C and said his opinion of him has not changed.
Following her diagnosis of cancer by Dr C, Ms K obtained a second opinion from breast surgeon Dr Maurice Stokes.
He told the inquiry that upon examining her there was nothing that felt like an invasive cancer but he added that because of his cautious nature he would have organised a mammogram even if he had not known Ms K’s diagnosis already.
Mr Murphy told the inquiry that he would be calling a consultant radiologist as his expert witness, who will tell the hearing he would not have sent the patient for a mammogram and that it was perfectly acceptable for Ms K to have been given a three-month review appointment.
The case will continue today.
