Have you undergone a procedure to which you consented but discovered afterwards that your surgeon had performed a different operation, the wrong operation, or a more radical procedure than you expected? If this has happened to you then the consequences can have a huge effect on your quality of your life and impact on you financially.
The risks and benefits of any procedure should be adequately explained to you by a suitably qualified doctor who is able to carry out the proposed procedure and you may want to ask questions. Important issues to consider during the consent process may be:-
- What are the more common, but less serious risks such as bleeding or infection?
- Are there less common, but more serious risks which may occur such as paralysis, nerve damage, amputation or death whilst under the anaesthetic?
- What are the chances of the surgery being successful?
- What is likely to happen if you do not have surgery?
Armed with this information you will be able to make an informed choice before signing a consent form.
Sometimes a surgeon may decide that more invasive surgery is needed whilst you are under general anaesthetic and it is impractical to wake you up to obtain consent. In some instances, it may be entirely reasonable for a surgeon to do this, but in other circumstances it is not.
In a recent case I have dealt with my client, Mr Martin Paine, had some pain in his knee which was restricting his movement and he agreed to a “washout” of the knee known as an arthroscopy. This was to be carried out as a day surgery case.
After the operation, Martin found out that, in addition to the planned operation, the surgeon had also performed a lateral release operation. This was a much more complex procedure with higher risks and a longer recovery period. Martin was angry at the fact that the lateral release procedure had been carried out without his consent.
Unfortunately, Martin developed septic arthritis and had a very prolonged recovery which inhibited his jobs as a postman and professional football coach. His enjoyment of sport was restricted for a considerable period and he lost earnings.
The hospital Trust defended their position saying that the consent form stated “left knee arthroscopy +/- proceed” and this gave them authority to carry out the more complex lateral release procedure.
We obtained an independent expert report which disputed this. The expert considered the consent process was inadequate and the additional procedure was unnecessary. Simply recording “+/- proceed” on the consent form did not give the hospital the right to carry out a much more complex procedure.
Martin was clear he would not have consented to such a procedure as a potentially long recovery period could have put him out of action at work for some time. Sadly this risk did manifest itself in his case.
Despite the hospital denying liability, the solicitors eventually agreed to negotiate and a settlement of £24,000 was agreed.
If you would like to discuss your potential case please call 0114 218 4000 and ask to speak to someone in our Clinical Negligence team.
0 Comments