Almost 2,000 cancer patients who were treated at the private Shepton Mallet Treatment Centre by Dutch surgeon Ben Mak have had their results called into question after a man he gave the all clear died.
Steve Davies was given the all clear at the private clinic by Dr Mak following a colonoscopy, in which a camera examines the large bowel to check for signs of cancer.
However, surgeons who operated on him months later discovered three tumors which Dr Mak should have spotted. 8 months after being given the all clear Steve Davies died as a result of bowel cancer.
His wife, Tracey Davies is now suing the clinic for medical negligence, along with around a dozen other people who were misdiagnosed.
Mrs Davies said that her husband actually had two bowel examinations at the Mallet Treatment Centre, both of which came back with the happy news that Mr Davies was clear of cancer. Unfortunately this turned out to be entirely incorrect.
'He carried out two of them within one week and they both came back normal,' she said.
'The surgeon who operated on Steve before his death found three tumours from 2003 to 2004 that should have been detected last year.
'They couldn't have done anything more for Steve but they could have given him some pain relief in his last months.'
In light of the revelations, Dr Mak was initially suspended before resigning after another patient whom he had given the all clear was later diagnosed with bowel cancer.
A spokesperson for Shepton Mallet Treatment Centre, which sells services to the NHS and sees 12,000 patients a year, said it was unable to comment on individual cases.
But the spokesperson did add that all of their results are being reviewed and admitted a proportion of the colonoscopies were not efficiently conducted, resulting in misdiagnosis.
Between Autumn 2005 and March 2008, almost 2,000 people visited the Shepton Mallet Treatment Centre and underwent a colonscopy to check for signs of bowel cancer.
Of those patients, 100 were advised to have a follow up investigation, 755 were told to speak to their GP and 480 were told that they may require a follow up investigation in the next five years.
Those 480 will now need to seek a second opinion and a furhter examination if they have not done so already.
'We are very sorry that we have had to recall some patients for a follow-up investigation,' it said.
'We understand the concern and distress that this has caused and we are doing all we can to support patients.
'The General Medical Council has been informed about this surgeon's work and a full independent investigation is being carried out.'
The Government established private treatment centres paid by the NHS to cut waiting lists.
But the centres have proved controversial with doubts raised about their value for money and quality of care.
Listed below are more articles related to the above article from the "Malpractice" article category.
People interested in the above article "Surgeon's Oversight Triggers Medical Negligence Claims" are also interested in the related articles listed below:
Physicians and nurses are expected to have the knowledge training and experience required to detect and react to fetal distress. They are also supposed to dedicate suitable attention to following their patient during labor and delivery. Should they fail to do so their actions might contribute to considerable harm to the unborn baby. In such cases they might be liable for medical malpractice.
The loss of a baby in childbirth is a painful experience for a parent. This article looks at a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that a physician ridiculed the mother for seeking a C-section once she realized she was unable to deliver naturally and them decided to employ a vacuum extractor but did so incorrectly and caused the death of her child.
Men have a 1 in 6 lifetime chance of having prostate cancer. If detected and treated while in the early stages prostate cancer has a roughly 97 per cent 5-year survival rate. If not discovered until it has metastasized, there is presently no known cure. This article considers the issue of medical malpractice arising out of a delayed diagnosis by looking at a published settlement in a case which claimed that a delay in diagnosis by his physician led to the metastasis of the plaintiff's prostate cancer.
Normally physicians acknowledge that raised PSA levels create a need to advise the patient and to do more testing to rule out prostate cancer. Should the patient has prostate cancer not telling the patient and allowing time to go by absent diagnostic testing risks allowing the cancer to spread. If this occurs the patient may have a medical malpractice case against the doctor.
Being informed by a doctor that one just has hemorrhoids and that one does not have to be concerned about blood in the stool can be very comforting. But unless the doctor has ruled out\eliminated the possibility of colon cancer, the patient might not uncover that he or she has it before it is too late. This article looks at how a delayed diagnosis because a physician erroneously assumed that blood was from hemorrhoids might amount to treatment that does not meet the standard of care and result in a medical malpractice case.
People recognize that paramedics lack the level of knowledge, training, or experience as physicians. Yet, when they do not notice signs that a patient is in a medical emergency (such as a pregnant woman experiencing a placental abruption) that needs fast transportation to a hospital, they might be liable for malpractice.People expect that when there is a medical emergency paramedics will have the knowledge, training and skill to correctly deal with the emergency.This means that they will be able to act fast and appropriately. It also means providing care that meets the applicable medical standard of care.A failure to do so can result in a malpractice lawsuit.
Parents typically assume that their kids will be safe from motor vehicle accidents as they head to school. However, possibly they ought to not be so sure. Look at an actual matter in which a car entered a mid-block crosswalk that was adjacent to a high school, hit a fifteen year old student who was crossing the street and who sustained a traumatic brain injury. The matter resulted in a jury verdict in excess of $9.0 million.
