DSC calls for enquiry into investigations of failed hospital treatments

Interminable delays and evasive tactics by health authorities when patients and/or their families try to have serious cases of failed hospital treatment properly investigated demand a comprehensive enquiry by appropriately qualified, independent experts, according to DSC health spokesman David Tranter.

While most of the cases of evasion and delays regarding investigations known to me have occurred on the South Island West Coast it is clear from information received that the cover-up agenda is widespread throughout New Zealand, Mr. Tranter said. Numerous volunteer campaign groups formed to fight for patients' rights further testify to the failure of the various "official" agencies which should be safeguarding patients' when treatment goes seriously wrong, sometimes with fatal consequences.

One example recently brought to my attention concerned the death of a baby in a North Island hospital in 2012 when a junior registrar tried to perform a forceps delivery unsupervised. The baby subsequently died in neonatal intensive care. That the report on this episode took three years to release was described by one of my contacts as follows; "Such delays, can have an effect of tormenting the victims, compromising subsequent patient care, compromising medical education as well has health care planning".

In one (on-going) saga on the West Coast a WCDHB bureaucrat recently stated in the media regarding an investigation into a disastrous operation at Greymouth Hospital, “It is important to note that this investigation, conducted directly by the HDC, is drawing upon independent expert opinions from clinicians not involved in the care provided to (the patient)”. Like the Wellington Hospital case this operation was performed in 2012 but apart from the interminable delays involving a whole gaggle of different managers and bureaucrats the DHB now tell the public that opinions "from clinicians not involved" are being sought by the HDC. One would have to be very naive to think other than this is simply a tactic to delay, confuse and evade the issue Mr. Tranter said.

In this case only the Privacy Commissioner has taken proper account of the concerns conveyed to him by the patients and their family. It is significant that he expressed in writing serious dissatisfaction with responses from the WCDHB but, like other agencies supposedly intended to protect the public's interests, the Privacy Commissioner cannot compel a DHB to act in any way. And that is the crux of the whole situation regarding patients' rights. No agency has any power to direct DHBs to act even if the agency wanted them to act differently. And given the previous Health Minister's frequent line regarding issues brought to his attention i.e. that it is "inappropriate" for him to intervene in the running of DHBs - a line apparently followed by the new health minister - it is clear that DHBs are a law unto themselves.

Another West Coast case, this time involving the death of a patient, has resulted in five years of frustration for the patient's family whose questions have been largely ignored by the WCDHB and the HDC. This involves an "investigation" sequence clearly illustrating the evasive nature of the authorities as follows; the patient died in 2010, the HDC delivered a provisional report in April 2013 and a final report two months later. In Sept. 2013 the HDC informed the family they will not investigate the matter any further. In Feb 2014 the Coroner agreed to conduct an inquest which was held in Nov. and the findings released in January 2015, nearly five years after the patient's death. And still the family have not had their questions answered.

Another alarming aspect of the rights of patients and their families is revealed by the stance of the CDHB's chief medical officer Nigel Millar. Despite being on record saying that “The patient owns their health record, we have to get over ourselves”, (quoted from the New Zealand Doctor).
Dr. Millar has also stated; “The patient owns the record to read, to annotate, to correct, to control”. When I queried why his own DHB won't allow a patient to correct their record he wouldn't answer in writing but suggested I meet him next time I am in Christchurch. Apart from the fact that he wouldn't commit himself to a written explanation, given that I live in Queensland, he is obviously on pretty safe ground regarding a meeting, Mr. Tranter said.

The hypocrisy concerning patients' rights is further highlighted by the fact that under the HDC code of rights people can ask a DHB to correct information in their files when it is wrong - but when patients request this all the CDHB/WCDHB will do is add the patient's comments to their record while retaining the information believed to be wrong as the official version.

To summarise, even where patients and/or their families have the determination required to take on powerful bureaucracies to obtain straight answers - often when they have experienced traumatic disruption to their lives - the system leaves them at the mercy of decisions taken in corporate offices, often by bureaucrats with completely irrelevant previous experience in fields entirely un-related to health. That the CDHB uses their corporate solicitor to further fudge the issues - and presumably other DHBs do likewise - raises the question of why they are doing this. Is it that they fear that New Zealanders will ultimately look to the United States situation where suing a DHB will become the only avenue left? If so they are going entirely the wrong way about avoiding this scenario because if the public come to widely distrust the tortuous and often secretive processes around investigation of patient concerns that will be the only avenue left open - for those who can afford it.

Trust is a precious thing in public services and unless an effective patient enquiry system - effectively based on patients' rights - is rapidly created, New Zealand is heading for growing problems in the public health system, Mr. Tranter concluded.

ENDS

© Scoop Media