Home > Publications > Selected Cases > Selected Investigations Completed December 2002March 2003 > Case no. E.1519/01-02
Complaint against Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Summary of Case
n January 1999 Mrs Y attended two hospital appointments at East Surrey Hospital with a breast lump. At the first appointment on 18 January, the consultant breast surgeon felt the lump and thought that it was not serious, but told Mrs Y to come back after two days for a scan. On the second visit a scan confirmed the presence of a lump. Mrs Y was told that it did not look serious and was probably a fibroadenoma (a benign solid growth) but, because she was over 30, she would have to have a core biopsy (removal of a piece of the lump with a large needle), and that a biopsy appointment would be sent to her. Mrs Y was put on a non-urgent waiting list, but was not informed of this. After five weeks had elapsed, Mrs Y had not received her appointment, and she telephoned the hospital to query this. She was telephoned the next day, and told that her biopsy appointment would be on 10 March. On 15 March the hospital telephoned Mrs Y and asked her to visit the Hospital on 17 March, as abnormal cells had been found. On 17 March Mrs Y was told that she had breast cancer.
Findings
The Ombudsman’s professional assessor found that the surgeon’s method of investigation of the breast lump was in line with the standard method in the UK. He also commented that because in Mrs Y’s case the index of suspicion was very low, it was appropriate that priority should have been given to those cases where the index of suspicion was very high. The assessor was of the opinion that Mrs Y’s case was not considered to be routine, but perhaps less urgent than some other cases at the time, and that there was no indication that the clinical decision making by the surgeon was in any way lacking. The assessor was also of the view that the delay in receiving the core biopsy appointment was unacceptable, and furthermore it was unacceptable that Mrs Y had to telephone the hospital herself in order to find out when the appointment would be. Also, Mrs Y should have been given some indication as to how long she would have to wait. The Ombudsman criticised the hospital for the delay, and partly upheld the complaint, in that there was an avoidable delay in carrying out the core biopsy, but the clinical judgment and actions taken were reasonable.
Remedy
The Ombudsman recommended that the Trust consider the appointment of a second radiologist with a major interest in breast disease at the hospital. The Trust also offered their apologies to Mrs Y.
Previous < Contents > Next
Back to top
|
