Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Hospital consultants
Comments
-
Thats wrong too!:D It isnt the last bastion.
But in any case, you havent shown how international regulatory systems have been a failure?
Or why a majority lay regulation can not properly regulate the system?
Other than to say they wont. Im open to arguments but you arent providing them.
What relevence does the bad arguments of some people years ago about a different regulatory system have to different people today making different arguments about a different regulatory system, which is barely a couple of years old....?!:D:rolleyes:
And that expert assistance is coming from a doctor, right?
How do you asess what is 'best practice' other than by involving medics?
How do you asess what is best for 'patient care' other than by involving medics?
The medical system can never be fully regulated by non-medics. They do not have the skill-set to do so alone. There are two possibilities:
1. Regulation by a body which includes medics, preferably with a lay majority.
2. Regulation by a body of non-medics, who, on (almost) every occasion, must seek expert external advice, often expert advice from multiple specialties, to determine any issue before them.
I would suggest that the latter is entirely impractical. But if you can explain how the latter is practical, or produce an example of where the latter has succeeded in real life, I look forward to hearing it......
Waste of time discussing it, we have a health sevice not fit for purpose,being dictated to by the vested interests of doctors nurses and their unions earning the highest wages in Europe and the lowest amount spent on primary patient care, but god forbid any outside influence upset your ''ricebowl'0 -
Fair enough; its a shame you didnt try and justify your position rather than just declaring what your position is and then question my motives.....!Waste of time discussing it, we have a health sevice not fit for purpose,being dictated to by the vested interests of doctors nurses and their unions earning the highest wages in Europe and the lowest amount spent on primary patient care, but god forbid any outside influence upset your ''ricebowl'
Why do you think it is upsetting my 'ricebowl' by the way? If anything, greater and greater regulation of the medical system would be great for the business i am in:D; but its easier to assume i have a vested interest in the status quo without actually finding out what the true picture is. Isnt it?0 -
Fair enough; its a shame you didnt try and justify your position rather than just declaring what your position is and then question my motives.....!
Why do you think it is upsetting my 'ricebowl' by the way? If anything, greater and greater regulation of the medical system would be great for the business i am in:D; but its easier to assume i have a vested interest in the status quo without actually finding out what the true picture is. Isnt it?
you have stated you are in the medical profession , yes ? if so you should spend more time listening to patients positions (mine) rather than just defending your own. Why would you assume that yours is the ''true'' picture.
Do you dispute that we have a seriously dysfunctional health system and that consultants are an integral part of that.0 -
No!........:rolleyes:you have stated you are in the medical profession , yes ? .Do you dispute that we have a seriously dysfunctional health system and that consultants are an integral part of that.
'seriously dysfunctional' doesnt actually mean anything. It just sounds really bad:eek:. Some parts of our medical system, including many of our consultants, are world class. Other parts are dysfunctional.
But the above means absolutely nothinhg when it comes to making an assessment as to the best way of regulating medical practitioners. But you appear to have given up on that discussion......0 -
No!........:rolleyes:
'seriously dysfunctional' doesnt actually mean anything. It just sounds really bad:eek:. Some parts of our medical system, including many of our consultants, are world class. Other parts are dysfunctional.
But the above means absolutely nothinhg when it comes to making an assessment as to the best way of regulating medical practitioners. But you appear to have given up on that discussion......
Shows how out of touch you really are when you say ''seriously dysfunctional'' dos'nt mean any thing,particularly when you use the same words to describe ''other parts'' . It means something or it dos'nt ,or else you are just being obfuscatory.
I said in my opening post that some of our consutants are brilliant and that all work incredibly long hours. I have no problem with their motivation what so ever.
Now just in case you are not being obfuscatory would you like me to outline for you why and in what ways the Irish Health system is a basket case, that is from the user point of view ?
As for the issue of regulation , you have made your position clear that ultimately it should lie with the medical professsion . I have made mine clear also in that it should completely independant and calling on expert testimony.
What more is there to discuss ? Other the the trend towards ligation will continue whereby people will go to ''an independant'' method where lay people can grasp the issues and can make a fair judgement. But alas in many cases much too late.0 -
Shows how out of touch you really are when you say ''seriously dysfunctional'' dos'nt mean any thing,particularly when you use the same words to describe ''other parts'' . It means something or it dos'nt ,or else you are just being obfuscatory..
Describing an entire system, which is made up of many different professions, and disciplines, and involves such a wide array of services, as 'seriously dysfunctional' is utterly meaningless. Tell you what, if i told you my assessment of the health servicewas 'mildly dysfunctional with isolated areas of functionality' would it mean anything to you....?:rolleyes:Now just in case you are not being obfuscatory would you like me to outline for you why and in what ways the Irish Health system is a basket case, that is from the user point of view ?..
Can we keep this to consultants, as im sure we could both go on forever with our assessments of the entire health service. I dont have any major problems with consultants as a whole.As for the issue of regulation , you have made your position clear that ultimately it should lie with the medical professsion . I have made mine clear also in that it should completely independant and calling on expert testimony..
So should the independent non-medical regulator be able to ignore the expert medical evidence they have obtained and strike a doctor off the Register against the advice/assessment of their chosen expert?What more is there to discuss ? Other the the trend towards ligation will continue whereby people will go to ''an independant'' method where lay people can grasp the issues and can make a fair judgement. But alas in many cases much too late.
In civil litigation, judges make the assessment and legally, they can only find against a doctor if a medical expert judges that doctor to have failed to reach the appropriate standard of care. Whichever way you cut it, doctors can only be judged by other doctors. That is the law; and there is good reason for it.0 -
Describing an entire system, which is made up of many different professions, and disciplines, and involves such a wide array of services, as 'seriously dysfunctional' is utterly meaningless. Tell you what, if i told you my assessment of the health servicewas 'mildly dysfunctional with isolated areas of functionality' would it mean anything to you....?:rolleyes:
Can we keep this to consultants, as im sure we could both go on forever with our assessments of the entire health service. I dont have any major problems with consultants as a whole.
should the independent non-medical regulator be able to ignore the expert medical evidence they have obtained and strike a doctor off the Register against the advice/assessment of their chosen expert?
In civil litigation, judges make the assessment and legally, they can only find against a doctor if a medical expert judges that doctor to have failed to reach the appropriate standard of care. Whichever way you cut it, doctors can only be judged by other doctors. That is the law; and there is good reason for it.
what happens when you get conflicting expert testimony in court cases ?0 -
No!........:rolleyes:
^^ when asked 'you have stated you are in the medical profession, yes?'
You said 'and when i practised as a doctor', also you are still calling yourself drkpower, so it is a fair assumption that your determined defense of the medical profession is related to these two facts.0 -
The simple answer: both experts are examined and cross examined and the judge decides which position is the more reasonable.what happens when you get conflicting expert testimony in court cases ?
But there is a little more to it than that;).
Would you suggest that such a mechanism is practical for all of the complaints that are made to the Medical Council? And for all of the other non-disciplinary functions of the Medical Council?0 -
Advertisement
-
^^ when asked 'you have stated you are in the medical profession, yes?'
You said 'and when i practised as a doctor', also you are still calling yourself drkpower, so it is a fair assumption that your determined defense of the medical profession is related to these two facts.
You mean from a position of knowledge of the medical system.....:D And yes, i once practised as a doctor but no longer do. In fact, because of my background i have a knowledge and understanding, far more than most, of many of the ills of the health service and medical professionals, as well as its positives.
Im actually defending the system of regulation of the medical profession, more than anything. And as i said before, my own narrow self-interest would be greatly served by the imposition of a rigorous independent regulation of the medical profession.
So you can be lazy and cast aspersions on my views because of my background, or you can actually make an argument. But I see you like to choose the former.:rolleyes:0 -
The simple answer: both experts are examined and cross examined and the judge decides which position is the more reasonable.
But there is a little more to it than that;).
Would you suggest that such a mechanism is practical for all of the complaints that are made to the Medical Council? And for all of the other non-disciplinary functions of the Medical Council?
So you do accept that a layman can adjudicate on medical matters ?
As for your point on all complaints , I dont see how having an independant
system is any more or less practical than the current system.
On non disciplinary issues , if there is no patient or public interest , you can work away.0 -
So you do accept that a layman can adjudicate on medical matters ?.
A layman can attempt to adjudicate between medical experts, yes. The problem with that approach is that it is practically impossible to take that approach with all of the complaints made to the Medical Council. Do you really advocate involving multiple medical experts +/- legal representation and cross examinatin for each case? Have you thought about the practical reality of that.
See my last pointAs for your point on all complaints , I dont see how having an independant
system is any more or less practical than the current system. .
Lol! ALmiost every part of the Medical Council's functioning involves patients or public interest, and require soecific medical knowledge. Developing regulatory standards being the most obvious eexample, but there are many others.On non disciplinary issues , if there is no patient or public interest , you can work away.
Your ideas, while laudable, are simply not practical.0 -
A layman can attempt to adjudicate between medical experts, yes. The problem with that approach is that it is practically impossible to take that approach with all of the complaints made to the Medical Council. Do you really advocate involving multiple medical experts +/- legal representation and cross examinatin for each case? Have you thought about the practical reality of that.
See my last point
Lol! ALmiost every part of the Medical Council's functioning involves patients or public interest, and require soecific medical knowledge. Developing regulatory standards being the most obvious eexample, but there are many others.
Your ideas, while laudable, are simply not practical.
Thanks very much.
But of course I do not advocate a system involving Legal reps/ Medical experts etc. We only went on that tangent to show that a lay person can and does adjudicate on medical matters,as opposed to your view that only doctors can do so .
And your remark that that my comments ''while laudable ,are simply not practical '' , leaving aside the condescension for a moment, are the same
defence that every entity has used in the past . This hiding behind complexity- from the nuclear industry, to the military mindset to the medical mindset. The old adage applies , you hire a thief to catch to catch a thief. The difference is ''the thief'' is answerable to the public good and only to the public good.
Your remark earlier in this thread that doctors will only accept other doctors deciding on their fitness to practice is the givaway.0 -
This has become a rather tedious debate between one person and a couple of others. I really do think that there is more than an element of trolling going on here.0
-
But of course I do not advocate a system involving Legal reps/ Medical experts etc. We only went on that tangent to show that a lay person can and does adjudicate on medical matters,as opposed to your view that only doctors can do so .
You should read my posts more carefully! I didnt say that only doctors a could adjudicate on medical matters - I said that the 'medical system can never be fully regulated by non-medics'. I even bolded and italicised the word 'fully' in the hope that you wouldnt mis-interpret what I said. Sadly my hope was in vain and you went and mis-interpreted it anyway!!:D
So, after taking us down an irrelevent tangent, perhaps you might actually give us your own view? You say that you do not favour a regulatory system 'involving Legal reps/ Medical experts etc'. Can you explain what you do favour and how a non-medic can assess the appropriateness of medical treatment?
Forget about the past; lets stick with this discussion. If you can explain to me how your suggestions would work to practically regulate the medical system, I look forward to it. Butr after some considerable time now, it still isnt clear what your suggestions are, nevermind how you propose they will be practical. It seems you have wasted a lot of time going down pointless tangents that you could have used to actually explain your position.And your remark that that my comments ''while laudable ,are simply not practical '' , leaving aside the condescension for a moment, are the same
defence that every entity has used in the past . .Your remark earlier in this thread that doctors will only accept other doctors deciding on their fitness to practice is the givaway.
Once again, you didnt read or failed to understand my post; I didnt say that 'doctors will only accept other doctors deciding on their fitness to practice'. I said that doctors do not want someone who has no understanding of medicine being the sole arbiter of whether they are entitled to practice medicine.
Can you see the difference between those two positions? I think even you yourself suggested a system whereby an independent regulator would be able to obtain expert opinion before making a finding, so you yourself recognise the need for a non-medic regulator to make their decision with expert medical opinion. Perhaos you might expand on what you see as a practical system. I asked you some time ago whether a non-medic regulator should be allowed to ignore the views of his chosen expert, but you dont seem to have answered that question.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I have had similar experiences.
My husband has severe spine and neck problems so we have been in and out quite a lot.
9 and a half times out of 10 you dont even get to see the actual consultant you are under - you get to see the people under them.
We have on 2 occasions asked politely to see the actual consultant rather than the lackey (for want of a better word).
One lady consultant very reluctlantly saw us, but didnt look us in the eye once, and replied 'hmm' and ya,ya,ya,' to any questions and made it clear she was in a rush.
The second time, the male consultant saw us and was very good, explaining everything clearly, but as he pointed out, there were over 800 patients to see that department in that day, and he physically could not see them all.
Fair point, but when we were with him for the 15 mins or so, the other doctors who see his patients were coming into him literally every minute, asking him questions, one showed him an xray and the consultant had to turn it up the right way round and point out the problem!
Too many patients, too many mistakes being made IMHO.
It would be nice to see the same person throughout your appointments, but this isnt possible I guess unless you were to go private.
The topic is if Irish consultants are in general arrogant etc, and I have found them to be on differing levels, their foreign counterparts seem more helpful, and willing to explain things - but you are never sure if they really know what they are talking about.
One doctor who saw us looked at my husbands spinal mri and said to the effect that nothing was wrong and to go home and take painkillers and book some physio - the lady consultant who we had asked to see came in and contradicted him in front of us and said he was wrong and that he needed surgery!0 -
You should read my posts more carefully! I didnt say that only doctors a could adjudicate on medical matters - I said that the 'medical system can never be fully regulated by non-medics'. I even bolded and italicised the word 'fully' in the hope that you wouldnt mis-interpret what I said. Sadly my hope was in vain and you went and mis-interpreted it anyway!!:D
So, after taking us down an irrelevent tangent, perhaps you might actually give us your own view? You say that you do not favour a regulatory system 'involving Legal reps/ Medical experts etc'. Can you explain what you do favour and how a non-medic can assess the appropriateness of medical treatment?
Forget about the past; lets stick with this discussion. If you can explain to me how your suggestions would work to practically regulate the medical system, I look forward to it. Butr after some considerable time now, it still isnt clear what your suggestions are, nevermind how you propose they will be practical. It seems you have wasted a lot of time going down pointless tangents that you could have used to actually explain your position.
Once again, you didnt read or failed to understand my post; I didnt say that 'doctors will only accept other doctors deciding on their fitness to practice'. I said that doctors do not want someone who has no understanding of medicine being the sole arbiter of whether they are entitled to practice medicine.
Can you see the difference between those two positions? I think even you yourself suggested a system whereby an independent regulator would be able to obtain expert opinion before making a finding, so you yourself recognise the need for a non-medic regulator to make their decision with expert medical opinion. Perhaos you might expand on what you see as a practical system. I asked you some time ago whether a non-medic regulator should be allowed to ignore the views of his chosen expert, but you dont seem to have answered that question.
Just semantics and Hairsplitting , as long as all there boards are constituted right now as they arebut responsible to lay oversight ,and final decision and where possible possible in the public domain , thats alright with me. If they are working fine , no need to reinvent the wheel,
lets just change the reporting structure and final say.0 -
Just semantics and Hairsplitting , as long as all there boards are constituted right now as they arebut responsible to lay oversight ,and final decision and where possible possible in the public domain , thats alright with me. If they are working fine , no need to reinvent the wheel,
lets just change the reporting structure and final say.
The current system has a lay majority, never mind lay oversight.
It is also subject to oversight by the High Court.
It is also subject to the 'final decision' of the High Court.
Fitness to Practice Inquiries must be held (except in exceptional cases) in the 'public domain'. The involvement of the High Court must be in the 'public domain'.
It seems you are actually in favour of the current system?:D
And if not, why are you refusing to spell out what it is you are in favour of and refuse to address how you might deal with the difficulties that approach might pose?0 -
BengaLover wrote: »I have had similar experiences.
My husband has severe spine and neck problems so we have been in and out quite a lot.
9 and a half times out of 10 you dont even get to see the actual consultant you are under - you get to see the people under them.
We have on 2 occasions asked politely to see the actual consultant rather than the lackey (for want of a better word).
One lady consultant very reluctlantly saw us, but didnt look us in the eye once, and replied 'hmm' and ya,ya,ya,' to any questions and made it clear she was in a rush.
The second time, the male consultant saw us and was very good, explaining everything clearly, but as he pointed out, there were over 800 patients to see that department in that day, and he physically could not see them all.
Fair point, but when we were with him for the 15 mins or so, the other doctors who see his patients were coming into him literally every minute, asking him questions, one showed him an xray and the consultant had to turn it up the right way round and point out the problem!
Too many patients, too many mistakes being made IMHO.
It would be nice to see the same person throughout your appointments, but this isnt possible I guess unless you were to go private.
The topic is if Irish consultants are in general arrogant etc, and I have found them to be on differing levels, their foreign counterparts seem more helpful, and willing to explain things - but you are never sure if they really know what they are talking about.
One doctor who saw us looked at my husbands spinal mri and said to the effect that nothing was wrong and to go home and take painkillers and book some physio - the lady consultant who we had asked to see came in and contradicted him in front of us and said he was wrong and that he needed surgery!
Just on this note, any doctor coming to work in Ireland must produce proof of certification and safety to practice. If this certificate is not prodcued to the Medical Administration Department within the required amount of time they will not be allowed to commence their employment at the hospital. Many of the foreign doctors have in fact studied medicine here in Ireland and have the exact same qualifications as the Irish doctors. I hope this helps you and your husband feel a little more at ease when you have your next appointment at the hospital.
On another aspect of your post, it is indeed frustrating to see a different person each and every time you visit the hospital, some continuity of care would do a lot to help a patient feel a sense of trust with their health care professional and allow a relationship to develop. Unfortunately, the OPD system puts great pressure on the consultant and his/her team of NCHD (non consultant hospital doctors) and as you pointed out with 800 plus patients in a day to be seen it is impossible for the consultant to get to see each and everyone one at the time of their appointment.
Some consultants can be as obnoxious as hell and others are lovely. I've met with some of each kind and others who didn't strike me either way.0 -
Advertisement
-
The current system has a lay majority, never mind lay oversight.
It is also subject to oversight by the High Court.
It is also subject to the 'final decision' of the High Court.
Fitness to Practice Inquiries must be held (except in exceptional cases) in the 'public domain'. The involvement of the High Court must be in the 'public domain'.
It seems you are actually in favour of the current system?:D
And if not, why are you refusing to spell out what it is you are in favour of and refuse to address how you might deal with the difficulties that approach might pose?
The current system which as I understand it only came in to effect in 2007 in the teeth of opposition from the medical profession despite the raft of scandals under the old one. Is is a massive improvement from what went before.But it is still a long way from what we need.
I would like to see further changes, such as
-A president or chief executive independantly appointed( preferrably lay)
-funding from the exchequer
- Less appointees from the Health areas, It is all very well saying there are 12 doctors and 13 lay people , but there are all from the health industry , that is just not exceptable
- more transparency in the oppointments process
And all that stuff about being subject to the high court is just pish, everything is subject to the high court, but if ther other remedial avenues were working correctly we should'nt see so many cases in the high court0 -
Ok, we are getting somewhere; so you really want a few amendments to the present system. See my comments above.I would like to see further changes, such as
-A president or chief executive independantly appointed( preferrably lay) how is the current manner of appointment not independent? Who do you suggest should do the appointing.
-funding from the exchequer I doubt you will get any argument from doctors on that one!
- Less appointees from the Health areas, It is all very well saying there are 12 doctors and 13 lay people , but there are all from the health industry , that is just not exceptable I suspect that is because those with an interest are from the broad area of health; but i dont have a difficulty with that proposal.
- more transparency in the oppointments process How is it opaque?
I think you misunderstand; every case of striking off (and perhaps censure/suspension) must be confirmed by the High Court. Its a seperation of powers issue.And all that stuff about being subject to the high court is just pish, everything is subject to the high court, but if ther other remedial avenues were working correctly we should'nt see so many cases in the high court0 -
I have only read the first few posts but wanted to put my 2 cent in sorry if the topic has moved elsewhere.
I was visiting a consultant for 3 years, on my first visit he decided I needed minor surgery. Fair enough. Check ups and tests 3-6 mths thereon, my last appointment with him he decided not to have the pre appointment meeting as per usual and sent me into the room to be tested. The tests were carried out by nurses when the consultant waded in half way through and immediately started shouting at me for a lifestyle choice, I was in an unsavoury position to say the least and he subjected me to a tirade of personal insults from which I had not raised issue or considered including my husbands faithfullness, which he is fully anyway.
So obviously I was quite upset, the consultant left slamming the door behind him and the nurses soothed me and apologised, they had assumed we had some sort of difference in the pre app meeting which never occured. I was persuaded to attend my next app which I did but asked for another consultant. Consultant 2 recommended further minor surgery which could be postponed depending on next test. Less than 3mths later consultant 1 sent a letter to my gp saying I no longer needed to attend his office.
I wrote to the hospital and hse, I asked firstly did I need further surgery or was I ok, why was I being released from his care if he previously told me I needed 3 clears before release and I also raised the issue about the treatment I received from him.
I never received reply from hse and reply from hospital came with a letter from Consultant 1 who had been informed of the exact complaint and my name and it contained personal insults again. It continued on for a number of months before I couldnt take any more and had myself transferred to another hospital. To my knowledge the consultant is still in place and still free to send patients home in tears if and when he likes.0 -
smelltheglove wrote: »I have only read the first few posts but wanted to put my 2 cent in sorry if the topic has moved elsewhere.
I was visiting a consultant for 3 years, on my first visit he decided I needed minor surgery. Fair enough. Check ups and tests 3-6 mths thereon, my last appointment with him he decided not to have the pre appointment meeting as per usual and sent me into the room to be tested. The tests were carried out by nurses when the consultant waded in half way through and immediately started shouting at me for a lifestyle choice, I was in an unsavoury position to say the least and he subjected me to a tirade of personal insults from which I had not raised issue or considered including my husbands faithfullness, which he is fully anyway.
So obviously I was quite upset, the consultant left slamming the door behind him and the nurses soothed me and apologised, they had assumed we had some sort of difference in the pre app meeting which never occured. I was persuaded to attend my next app which I did but asked for another consultant. Consultant 2 recommended further minor surgery which could be postponed depending on next test. Less than 3mths later consultant 1 sent a letter to my gp saying I no longer needed to attend his office.
I wrote to the hospital and hse, I asked firstly did I need further surgery or was I ok, why was I being released from his care if he previously told me I needed 3 clears before release and I also raised the issue about the treatment I received from him.
I never received reply from hse and reply from hospital came with a letter from Consultant 1 who had been informed of the exact complaint and my name and it contained personal insults again. It continued on for a number of months before I couldnt take any more and had myself transferred to another hospital. To my knowledge the consultant is still in place and still free to send patients home in tears if and when he likes.
let me ask you something , when this ogre ( consultant 1 ) wrote to your GP , did your GP side with him ?0 -
smelltheglove wrote: »I have only read the first few posts but wanted to put my 2 cent in sorry if the topic has moved elsewhere.
I was visiting a consultant for 3 years, on my first visit he decided I needed minor surgery. Fair enough. Check ups and tests 3-6 mths thereon, my last appointment with him he decided not to have the pre appointment meeting as per usual and sent me into the room to be tested. The tests were carried out by nurses when the consultant waded in half way through and immediately started shouting at me for a lifestyle choice, I was in an unsavoury position to say the least and he subjected me to a tirade of personal insults from which I had not raised issue or considered including my husbands faithfullness, which he is fully anyway.
So obviously I was quite upset, the consultant left slamming the door behind him and the nurses soothed me and apologised, they had assumed we had some sort of difference in the pre app meeting which never occured. I was persuaded to attend my next app which I did but asked for another consultant. Consultant 2 recommended further minor surgery which could be postponed depending on next test. Less than 3mths later consultant 1 sent a letter to my gp saying I no longer needed to attend his office.
I wrote to the hospital and hse, I asked firstly did I need further surgery or was I ok, why was I being released from his care if he previously told me I needed 3 clears before release and I also raised the issue about the treatment I received from him.
I never received reply from hse and reply from hospital came with a letter from Consultant 1 who had been informed of the exact complaint and my name and it contained personal insults again. It continued on for a number of months before I couldnt take any more and had myself transferred to another hospital. To my knowledge the consultant is still in place and still free to send patients home in tears if and when he likes.
I would have kicked his feckin ass all over the place
This sort of crap makes my blood boil, very sorry to hear you had to go through something like this, the consultant should be dragged over the coals0 -
smelltheglove wrote: »To my knowledge the consultant is still in place and still free to send patients home in tears if and when he likes.
That is disgraceful.
Did you do anything in an attempt to restrict his freedom 'to send patients home in tears if and when he likes', such as making a complaint to the Medical Council and/or the Hospital. Or is this post the extent of your efforts to prevent him from engaging in this type of behaviour in future?0 -
That is disgraceful.
Did you do anything in an attempt to restrict his freedom 'to send patients home in tears if and when he likes', such as making a complaint to the Medical Council and/or the Hospital. Or is this post the extent of your efforts to prevent him from engaging in this type of behaviour in future?
She did contact the hospital if you read her post0 -
She did contact the hospital if you read her post
Yes, and she got a reply containing further insults. I am asking whether she has lodged a complaint to the Medical Council and/or the Hospital since? Try and keep up...:D.
If her story is true, it seems that such a complaint is warranted, and would have objective evidential weight behind it.0 -
Yes, and she got a reply containing further insults. I am asking whether she has lodged a complaint to the Medical Council and/or the Hospital since? Try and keep up...:D.
If her story is true, it seems that such a complaint is warranted, and would have objective evidential weight behind it.
Thats not what you asked originally ...
anyways i agree with you :eek: it would have provided extra evidence and sanctions could have been forthcoming to stop this from happening again and to someone else0 -
Sorry for the long post but I hope this answers all questions. It may be a bit all over the place, I have read over it, it makes sense to me I hope it is clear to you guys.
As you can guess it was all due to womens issues. I was extremely upset over the whole situation and when I received the letter sent to me containing the consultants insults I did lose the rag ever so slightly as you can imagine. To refresh my memory I just read the mails and my initial complaint did not include the insults of the day. I have an awful memory so bare with me on this, (honestly my memory is disgraceful). Reading the mails, I did attend for an app after the insulting one where I saw another consultant but I was approached by consultant 1 for the pre app meeting and I did say I had an issue with him over the previous app which he conveniently forgot but apologised if he came across badly.
Anyway he didnt come in for the appointment. My complaints started with the fact that Consultant 2 wanted me to have a lletz and as I had quit smoking myself and the nurse both asked to wait 6 mths and see then to which the consultant agreed as smoking can affect this area. I have to say my mails were very well put, the initial one stating fact alone. At the end of that mail I said that I was not making a complaint against consultant 1, although we had issues before I had dealt directly with him over this but at this stage I felt that I needed to question the diagnosis. After calling the consultants office to query I was told that there were notes for me to come in for a lletz and I stated this in the mail as being another reason why I should query the diagnosis and the fact that there were cases of misdiagnosis all over the press at that time and it may be an idea to have a look at all cases where patients were released to doctors care in that period of time.
Anyway the reply I received caused the bigger issue as it contained a letter containing insults from consultant 1 and it was in fact consultant 1 who decided to go more into detail about our previous issues. I had stated I was not making a complaint there and then about that but he decided to bring up details of it. I stated that my memory would not allow me to quote word for word and I did not want to go into a playgroud he said she said argument. I also said this issue was not raised by myself and was not the issue from which the complaint stemmed.
I continued to reply including references to paragraphs or lines in the letter from the consultant. This is the ending of that reply to the hospital.I refer to the part Dr. ____ says 'I would be delighted to meet with ____ face to face and have a meeting with her to go over these details', I find this quite intimidating for the fact that in the same sentence he is speaking about how I am completely out of order etc and also uncalled for as I never made a direct complaint to Dr. ____ and I feel this is making the issue too personal for comfort. Again Dr. ____ goes on to say that 'given the sterness of the last couple of lines in ____'s note about battling with cancer etc and given the fact that despite strong lectures from me she continued to smoke ........, I find this somewhat surprising'. I would love to know the point of this statement? It could be taken up in a lot of contexts, maybe as an insult or maybe he thinks a smoker does not care about cancer? I am very unsure about that and do not see the point of it. Does this mean I should not care about cancer or other people getting it? No it does not. My caution for other people was completely the reason for the complaint. I must reitterate I am very uncomfortable with the direction this has taken.
I would request a more professional approach to this situation and a much less personal one. I am shocked and appalled at how this situation has developed.
After that I did receive another letter, the details of which I am not 100% sure of but I do recall it wasnt very satisfactory, just a plain apology from the hospital and that the consultants letter should not have been included.
At the time the only people I contacted were yoursay@hse and the hospital directly. I did not know of anyone else to contact nor did I see the point considering the direction my initial complaint had taken. I decided to just get on with it and transferred to another hospital. To be honest, I had a young baby, I was planning my own wedding and building a house and I certainly did not need the hassle that this had caused me.
Looking back on it now, I should have taken it further, I should have made an official complaint as soon as the incident happened with the consutant shouting at me. I remember driving the 50 miles home crying my eyes out and not knowing what to do. I did try call other hospitals, ones closer to me but their waiting times were so long and also the consultant sat in other hospitals too so I could have crossed his path anyway. Eventually when I did transfer I ensured the consultant did not sit at that hospital annd I have been very happy with the treatment I received there.
Haha I am actually annoyed again reading over those emails.0 -
Advertisement
-
Smelltheglove, I have to say I find it a bit difficult to follow your letter and who is who, while at the same time I can sympathise with your frustration as I have been in similar situations.
In medical situations you feel vulnerable, and unwilling to make waves as you are trying to cope with a difficult situation. If you want to pursue a specific situation you have to make a complaint - which you have done, and having got an unsatisfactory response decide either to pursue it further or abandon it and get on with your life.
I'm not really one to talk as I made the first comment about Consultants. There is one issue that I am still trying to clarify, but other than that it is not worth the hassle of pursuing individual obnoxious people. Certainly I think there is no point going to the IMO unless you are prepared to have someone represent you.
Just to give one example of a situation where a Consultant behaved arrogantly and inappropriately. A consultant, his team and the parents were standing round a baby's cot in a hospital. The Consultant addressed the team and said - this child is going to die. The parents had not been told prior to this and the mother broke down in tears. The students and the consultant looked on while she tried to gather herself, and the Consultant went on with his lecture. That was the extent of his communication with the parents. How could they be expected to engage in an argument over that kind of treatment?
Which brings me back to my original argument, that there should be a simple, non-confrontational way of commenting on treatment received. It works in other areas than medicine - students comment on their overall experience in colleges. Even cafes have a 'how did we do' comment slip. Everyone is aware that there can be malicious comments and so only trends are observed, rather than issues with individual staff. It does however mean that if worrying observations are made over a period of time and there is a pattern emerging, the authorities are at least aware.
Even if you look at it from a simple point of view of consumer service, we are paying for these consultations. If you went to an optician/ solicitor/ accountant who was rude, offhand, uninformative or condescending you would be in a better position to vote with your feet, but within the trust system required in medicine you are just expected to put up with it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement