Surgeon cleared as cancer patient 'fell through a gap'

A CONSULTANT surgeon, who faced a Medical Council inquiry after his patient failed to get cancer biopsy results for 15 months, had “a misplaced confidence” in the system for reporting lab results at St Columcille’s hospital in Dublin, a fitness-to-practise committee has found.

The committee found Mr S (58), from Knocklyon, Dublin, “fell through a gap” between public and private procedures.

Dr Mashood Ahmed, who worked at St Columcille’s in Loughlinstown and at the Beacon Hospital in Sandyford, was cleared of all allegations of poor professional performance made against him.

The allegations were made after Mr S had a biopsy on a mole on his chest in August 2008 at St Columcille’s. His initial appointment with Mr Ahmed was at the Beacon, a private facility, but he was treated at St Columcille’s because he could not afford to pay for the procedure privately.

Because there was confusion around whether he was a public or private patient, Mr S was never given a follow-up appointment and his biopsy results were not given to him.

Mr S did not learn until November 2009, when he attended the emergency department at Tallaght Hospital, that he had malignant melanoma. He died the following month.

The fitness-to-practise committee, chaired by Dr Danny O’Hare, said it was satisfied that “while as a matter of fact” Mr Ahmed did not ensure that a follow-up appointment for Mr S was arranged and did not arrange for the biopsy results to be pursued, “this was not a failure on his part”.

“Mr Ahmed, unfortunately, had a misplaced confidence in the system for reporting laboratory reports in St Columcille’s Hospital,” he said.

“The committee would hope that these deficiencies, which became obvious during the course of the inquiry, have been rectified.”

The committee also said it was satisfied Mr Ahmed did not receive a copy of Mr S’s biopsy results, “contrary to the impression given” in a letter from the Health Service Executive to Mrs S.

Mr Ahmed did have adequate procedures for pursuing and considering biopsy results for both public and private patients, the committee found.

However, Mr S “fell through a gap between the two sets of procedures by reason of a number of errors and failures in the overall system within which he was required to operate”.