Jump to content
RadX

Apex court grants appeal agst CGH over diagnosis delay

Recommended Posts

Whoaaaa..this one serious      

 

 

 

Apex court grants woman's appeal against Changi General Hospital over delay in lung cancer The Court of Appeal on Tuesday (Feb 26) granted a woman her appeal against Changi General Hospital (CGH) for delaying diagnosis of her lung cancer.

 

 

A High Court judge had dismissed the claims of negligence in February last year, finding that a nodule in one of Ms Noor Azlin Abdul Rahman's lungs had been benign when first detected in 2007.

 

However, the apex court on Tuesday found that CGH was in breach of its duty of care owed to the woman by failing to have in place a proper system for adequate follow-up of radiological results and patient management.

 
 

This resulted in a delay in diagnosing Ms Azlin with lung cancer, said Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Judith Prakash.

Ms Azlin first visited CGH in 2007, where an X-ray of her chest found opacity. She was referred to specialist respiratory physician Dr Imran Mohamed Noor, who ordered two further X-rays and assessed that the opacity "appeared to be resolving or had resolved on its own".

He gave Ms Azlin an open date for a follow-up. The woman went back to CGH twice, seeing two doctors at the Accident & Emergency (A&E) department in April 2010 and July 2011.

 
Advertisement
 

Both times, chest X-rays were performed on Ms Azlin, and the radiologist recommended follow-up for the opacity, but none was carried out.

A nodule was found in Ms Azlin's chest by a CGH respiratory physician only after she was referred there by Raffles Medical Clinic in late 2011 for coughing, breathlessness and blood in her phlegm.

A biopsy in February 2012 confirmed that the nodule was malignant and she had lung cancer. The cancer progressed to Stage IV in August 2014 and Ms Azlin was found to be suffering from a rare condition known as ALK gene arrangement.

By October 2016, the cancer had spread to her brain. 

Ms Azlin sued CGH and three doctors in January 2015, saying that their negligence delayed the diagnosis and treatment of her lung cancer, causing it to go untreated.

Justice Belinda Ang in February last year ruled that the respondents had met the standard of care expected of them.

She said Ms Azlin did not have lung cancer, or that the nodule was benign, between October 2007 and July 2011. 

Moreover, she was treated for her ALK-positive lung cancer at the earliest available time, because drugs approved for such a disease were available for clinical trials in Singapore only in 2013 and 2014 and only for patients suffering late-stage cancer.

CGH NEGLIGENT BUT DOCTORS NOT NEGLIGENT, COURT OF APPEAL FINDS

The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court judge's decision that the two A&E doctors were not in breach of duty, as an A&E doctor "is not expected to conduct a general health screening". Instead, his priority is to resolve the patient's presenting complaints - in this case Ms Azlin's chest pains.

The apex court also agreed with the High Court judge's ruling that the first CGH doctor Ms Azlin had seen - Dr Imran - had breached his duty of care for failing to schedule a follow-up appointment, even though he was uncertain that the opacity in Ms Azlin's chest had resolved completely.

Although the judges found none of the doctors liable in negligence, they found that "CGH’s negligence caused a significant delay of at least seven months in diagnosis".

According to the appeal judges, the patient management system at CGH resulted in Ms Azlin, who had a persistent nodule in her lung, being seen by only one respiratory specialist over four years.

The system CGH had to review radiological reports was "inadequate" because it did not allow comprehensive management of patients, with "no appropriate mechanism for the consolidation of what was already known". 

That is, each time Ms Azlin went to the A&E department, and each time a radiological report on her nodule was prepared, it was seemingly "treated as an isolated incident".

The A&E doctors did not have access to Dr Imran's notes, as his consultation with Ms Azlin had not been at A&E.

"CGH did not have a practice of sending its patients the report and test results from the scans conducted at the hospital," said the judges. "It was plainly unreasonable for CGH to rely on the patient's account of what happened at consultations outside of the A&E department.

"If the A&E doctor reviewing the radiological report had checked against Dr Imran’s notes, for example, it would have become immediately obvious to him that the only specialist who had seen her over the past four years had mistakenly concluded that the opacity was resolving or had resolved," said the judges. 

The A&E doctor would have concluded that "the nodule had been persistent and had not been properly assessed by a specialist", they said.

The judges said an amicable settlement would allow Ms Azlin "to focus on battling her cancer and recovering as best as she can", saying it would be "appropriate for CGH to consider the possibility of a settlement in the interests of expediency and resolution".

The Court of Appeal judges have reserved costs and referred the question of loss and damages back to the High Court judge.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/changi-general-hospital-lawsuit-lung-cancer-delay-diagnosis-11289948

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/cgh-says-it-could-have-done-better-after-woman-slams-its-treatment-of-grandmother-in-fb-post-025723901.html

 

not related to the above case. full of text on cgh patient care.

 

Changi General Hospital (CGH) has addressed a recent viral Facebook post, in which a deceased woman’s granddaughter expressed unhappiness at poor palliative care given by the hospital.

 

While it insisted that “appropriate medical care” was given during the 81-year-old’s stay, it acknowledged in a media statement on Wednesday (15 May) that there were “communication gaps which could have been prevented”.

Edited by Kopites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hospital so jialat meh? So many ppl comprain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C = cannot

G = go

H = home

 

this was told to me by a Dr from another hospital.

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C = cannot

G = go

H = home

 

this was told to me by a Dr from another hospital.

 

No wonder LKY always went to Sure Get Home, even on his last trip (the home may have a different meaning each and every time)  :D  :D

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder LKY always went to Sure Get Home, even on his last trip (the home may have a different meaning each and every time)  :D  :D

quite close …

 

the same Dr told me :

 

S = sure

G = go

H = home

 

 

…. and his advice to me was to go to SGH even though CGH is literally just next door to my place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder LKY always went to Sure Get Home, even on his last trip (the home may have a different meaning each and every time) :D:D

.............. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder LKY always went to Sure Get Home, even on his last trip (the home may have a different meaning each and every time)  :D  :D

 

 

yah, many things actually depends how and who interpret it. [laugh]

 

reminds me of the famous "七子出征六子归" from 杨家将. The old women thought 7 go 6 come back, actually is 7 go but only number 6 return.   :wacko:

 

A friend of mine once went to ask a master to help his sick mum, the master said to him, "放心吧,很快就不会再痛了."  He went back happily thinking that hosay liao. The following week his mum passed away, and really is no more pain for her liao, 脱离苦海.  -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not personally involved in this case  and has no affiliation to any one or organization related to this case (except maybe the professional link)

 

Just want to say, if you are in the same field and had been through the hospital ward system, and you read CGH's response to the accusations, you will appreciate the restrain the authorities are putting in to the response.

 

The Facebook is a good source of one-sided-I-say-therefore-I-am-right information release.

 

There is a reason why hospitals limit the point of contact to 1 or at most 2 person within the family for purpose of update and consent if the patient is unable to give one. You will be surprised by how many different relatives can request to get an update from the doctor at every single visiting hours. Most of these relatives are only entitled to their concern for the patient and that's just about it. They contribute nothing to the care or recovery of  the patient by being given the update. Imagine the primary doctor caring for the patient has to repeat the same update to every single adhoc visiting relative, nothing gets done in the ward which the primary purpose is to get the patient well and out of hospital as soon as possible.

Some of these relatives only see the sick patient once every CNY but yet tried to project their "concern" and subconscious guilt to the medical team by trying to get update, show care and concern about the well being of the patient. If they are really that concern, get their updates from the assigned point of contact and leave the medical team to do their job.

 

Of course they should sound out for the patient if they notice any discomfort to the carers (nurses/doctors) who are in the area. These should not be brushed off.

 

There you go, this is my other one-sided story that CGH will never dare to print in fear of a back lash and being accused of being defensive.

 

 

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/cgh-says-it-could-have-done-better-after-woman-slams-its-treatment-of-grandmother-in-fb-post-025723901.html

not related to the above case. full of text on cgh patient care.

Changi General Hospital (CGH) has addressed a recent viral Facebook post, in which a deceased woman’s granddaughter expressed unhappiness at poor palliative care given by the hospital.

While it insisted that “appropriate medical care” was given during the 81-year-old’s stay, it acknowledged in a media statement on Wednesday (15 May) that there were “communication gaps which could have been prevented”.

 

  • Praise 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not personally involved in this case and has no affiliation to any one or organization related to this case (except maybe the professional link)

 

Just want to say, if you are in the same field and had been through the hospital ward system, and you read CGH's response to the accusations, you will appreciate the restrain the authorities are putting in to the response.

 

The Facebook is a good source of one-sided-I-say-therefore-I-am-right information release.

 

There is a reason why hospitals limit the point of contact to 1 or at most 2 person within the family for purpose of update and consent if the patient is unable to give one. You will be surprised by how many different relatives can request to get an update from the doctor at every single visiting hours. Most of these relatives are only entitled to their concern for the patient and that's just about it. They contribute nothing to the care or recovery of the patient by being given the update. Imagine the primary doctor caring for the patient has to repeat the same update to every single adhoc visiting relative, nothing gets done in the ward which the primary purpose is to get the patient well and out of hospital as soon as possible.

Some of these relatives only see the sick patient once every CNY but yet tried to project their "concern" and subconscious guilt to the medical team by trying to get update, show care and concern about the well being of the patient. If they are really that concern, get their updates from the assigned point of contact and leave the medical team to do their job.

 

Of course they should sound out for the patient if they notice any discomfort to the carers (nurses/doctors) who are in the area. These should not be brushed off.

 

There you go, this is my other one-sided story that CGH will never dare to print in fear of a back lash and being accused of being defensive.

Well explained .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not personally involved in this case and has no affiliation to any one or organization related to this case (except maybe the professional link)

 

Just want to say, if you are in the same field and had been through the hospital ward system, and you read CGH's response to the accusations, you will appreciate the restrain the authorities are putting in to the response.

 

The Facebook is a good source of one-sided-I-say-therefore-I-am-right information release.

 

There is a reason why hospitals limit the point of contact to 1 or at most 2 person within the family for purpose of update and consent if the patient is unable to give one. You will be surprised by how many different relatives can request to get an update from the doctor at every single visiting hours. Most of these relatives are only entitled to their concern for the patient and that's just about it. They contribute nothing to the care or recovery of the patient by being given the update. Imagine the primary doctor caring for the patient has to repeat the same update to every single adhoc visiting relative, nothing gets done in the ward which the primary purpose is to get the patient well and out of hospital as soon as possible.

Some of these relatives only see the sick patient once every CNY but yet tried to project their "concern" and subconscious guilt to the medical team by trying to get update, show care and concern about the well being of the patient. If they are really that concern, get their updates from the assigned point of contact and leave the medical team to do their job.

 

Of course they should sound out for the patient if they notice any discomfort to the carers (nurses/doctors) who are in the area. These should not be brushed off.

 

There you go, this is my other one-sided story that CGH will never dare to print in fear of a back lash and being accused of being defensive.

nod..especially relatives.

 

check with the immediate family member consent before approaching any medical staffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

my experience with CGH when my dad was in hospital for a few times seems vastly different from what is in the article.

 

I won't say it's perfect but it is understandable that once a while miscommunication or oversight happens

 

an example. Went to A&E today, admitted immediately but had to wait for bed the next day, that same night was told report was out, need consent to operate, consent given and 1 hour later wheeled to OT... in between was explained on the risks of the op

Edited by Galantspeedz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quite close â¦

 

the same Dr told me :

 

S = sure

G = go

H = home

 

 

â¦. and his advice to me was to go to SGH even though CGH is literally just next door to my place.

Actually Sure Go Heaven came to my mind first....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relate somehow to my customers when I was doing outsourcing.

 

In a system outage, literally the whole world ask for update and resolution.

We had the service delivery manager pacify the executives

Then have our help desk play automated update for generic users that call in.

 

This way our tech people could focus on troubleshooting and recovery.

 

Tech people are like the docs.

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×