See one, do one, teach one – advising patients of your experience and training

The Supreme Court of NSW recently found a neurosurgeon liable in negligence because he lacked the relevant experience and training to perform an operation and undertook surgery in circumstances where the condition should have been monitored and an expectant approach taken in the first instance.

Following complaints of mild persistent headaches, a 73 year old patient was diagnosed with a 3.5cm tumour on his brain. On referral to a neurosurgeon, the patient underwent endoscopic surgery for removal of the tumour, which left him in a grossly impaired state.

The patient complained that the neurosurgeon did not advise him that he had never performed that type of endoscopic surgery previously, or received any training for it. The experts all agreed that it was not appropriate for the surgery to be carried out when the neurosurgeon had not been trained in it. The court found that there was a failure to properly advise the patient that the doctor lacked the experience to carry out the operation.

The alternative to an operation was a wait and see approach. The experts’ concluded that an expectant approach was the preferred course considering the patient’s age, the size of the tumour and the extent of symptoms.

The Court found that had the patient been appropriately advised of the risks of the surgery versus an expectant approach, as well as the surgeon’s lack of training and the experience, then it’s likely the patient would not have undergone the surgery. That was because of risk of undergoing the surgery in the hands of a surgeon who have never performed or observed the procedure were much more serious than the risks of an expectant approach.

This decision provides a reminder for practitioners that when advising their patients as to treatment, this requires them to provide information on other available treatment options, the risks associated with each the available options and whether they lack the requisite training and experience in relation to a recommended treatment option. A failure to do so will expose the practitioner to liability where the patient can satisfy the Court that they would not have undergone the treatment, which caused the damage.

Reference: Jambrovic v Day [2017] NSWSC 1468

Posted by Karen Kumar

Most Popular Articles

Blog

Service of Notices by Registered Post

Where service of a notice is authorised or required by post, unless the contrary intention appears, service will be deemed to be effected at the time when the notice would be delivered in the ordinary course of post: see the various Acts Interpretation acts of the States and Commonwealth.
Blog

Medical manslaughter - The Australian Experience

Medical manslaughter has come into the spotlight in the last week following the recent decision in England to deregister a medical practitioner after she was found guilty of manslaughter in 2015.
Blog

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017- Effects on Section 151Z(1)(d) – Indemnity Claims

The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 commences operation on 1 December 2017.

Subscribe to Our Blog

Keeping you connected, Hicksons regularly publishes articles to keep you up to date on the latest developments. To receive these updates via email, please subscribe below and indicate which areas of law you would like to receive information on.

Top