Surgeon who removed baby’s bladder allowed to practice
A consultant pediatric surgeon who mistakenly removed 90% of a 7 week old baby girl’s bladder during a hernia operation has been found guilty of misconduct, by the General Medical Council (GMC).
However, the panel said, “it did not merit being struck off the medical register and that patients should not be 'deprived' of her medical services.”
Conditions were imposed on her registration for the next year, meaning that she should not carry out a similar operation unsupervised until her health trust's medical director was satisfied it was safe to do so.
The panel told her: “This period reflects the severity of the matters found proved but will permit you to undertake a phased return to independent practice.”
The medical negligence case occurred when she operated on the baby in October 2008, after she was admitted to Manchester Children’s Hospital for hernia difficulties.
Then aged seven weeks, she needed surgery on both sides of her stomach and surgeons operated the left side, where an ovary was embedded.
The surgeon, aged 43, was supposed to remove a hernial sac, but unable to recognise the anatomy, she instead cut out nearly 90% of the baby’s bladder. She stitched the remnant closed, closing off the urethra and obstructing the right ureter.
Unaware that she had removed the wrong tissues, she told the parents that the operation was a “complete success”.
Shortly afterwards, the baby’s condition deteriorated after not being able to pass urine for over 35 hours, forcing an emergency operation. It was only then that the mistake was realised.
Complete Negligence
According to the GMC, the surgeon failed to correctly identify the muscle layers in the abdominal wall, recognise the anatomy in the baby's left side, identify the bladder and find the hernial sac.
GMC panel chairman Dr. Linda Buchanan, questioned the choices made during the procedure, stating: “The panel notes that during surgery you stopped the procedure twice in order to re-orientate yourself and take stock of the situation. However, notwithstanding the problems you experienced during surgery you did not seek the help or opinion of a fellow consultant surgeon.”
“The panel has found that you did not take any adequate steps to arrange for an ultrasound scan of the baby's abdomen and urinary tract,” Buchanan added.
A seven-day fitness to practice hearing found the 43-year-old surgeon’s actions went beyond just professional negligence and crossed the threshold to misconduct.
The baby, now nearly 18-months-old, will most likely require the use of a catheter for the rest of her life and is at an increased risk of cancer due to the procedure. She may have to face further surgery.
The Final Decision
Dr Buchanan furthered: "The Panel is of the opinion that you have shown good insight regarding the events in October 2008 and also that you have displayed a good level of motivation to return to practice.
"Further, the Panel notes that there have been no concerns relating to your conduct whilst you have been subject to the conditions placed upon your registration by the Interim Orders Panel in March 2009.
"In view of everything that it has heard and the fact that no other patient concerns have been raised, the Panel considers that you are capable of returning to unsupervised safe medical practice after a period of remediation.
"It has therefore determined that it would be appropriate to impose conditions upon your registration. The Panel did not consider that a more severe sanction is necessary and is of the view that the patients should not be deprived of your medical services."
The Surgeon had admitted her role in the operation was ''inadequate'' and below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent consultant paediatric surgeon. She admitted that she caused ''irreparable damage'' to the youngster's urinary tract in the botched procedure.
She also apologised through her barrister to the child's mother for the ''distress'' caused to her family.
The parents said that they respect the decision made by the GMC panel and now believe that the surgeon is truly sorry for the pain and suffering she has caused to their daughter.
They believe that without the hard work of the rest of the staff at Manchester Children’s Hospital, their daughter would not be alive today.
It is unknown if they will file a compensation claim.Updated on 3/23/2010