Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Dec 1996

Vol. 473 No. 1

Written Answers. - Missing Medical Details.

Mary Wallace

Question:

95 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Health the way in which a crucial file of an anti-D mother (details supplied) in County Meath went missing in St. James's Hospital, Dublin 8, at the end of June 1996; the information, if any, currently available regarding the missing file; if it has been drawn to his attention that this very large file covers a five year period of attendance at St. James's Hospital due to moler pregnancies and chemotherapy of six months and also incorporates medical history and details from a Drogheda hospital dating back to this patient's first anti-D injection in 1978 and also includes medical history and details from the Rotunda Hospital of an 1989 ectopic pregnancy; and if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that this particular patient, who has two children aged 15 and 13, had received 15 anti-D injections and two transfusions in the period from 1978 to 1991; if he will have investigations made to locate this crucial file. [24362/96]

Mary Wallace

Question:

96 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Health the reason an anti-D mother (details supplied) in County Meath who was tested in late 1994 by the Blood Transfusion Service Board was not told that her test was positive until she made a phone call to the Blood Transfusion Service Board in July 1996; the reason a separate test carried out on the same anti-D mother on 28 June 1996 was reported as negative by the Blood Transfusion Service Board; the reason no explanation has been forthcoming from the Blood Transfusion Service Board for no result being forthcoming of the first test, calling the patient in early June 1996 to attend treatment in St. James's Hospital without notifying the patient of the positive result, and sending out a negative result on this patient at the end of June 1996; the date of the late 1994 test; the result of this test; the date upon which that result was given to the patient or her doctor; the medium by which the result was given; the explanation for the incorrect result on 28 June 1996; the reason for the appalling errors and poor handling of these incidences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24363/96]

Minister for Health (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick East): I propose to take Questions Nos. 95 and 96 together.

I have informed by the Blood Transfusion Service Board that the person concerned was tested on 2 March 1994 under the national blood screening programme which was introduced to screen all women who had received the anti-D product to identify those who were infected with hepatitis C. The test was ELISA negative, and the person's general practitioner was notified accordingly. A further test was referred to the board by the person's GP in March in 1996 under the national optional testing programme which was introduced to ensure that all recipients of blood transfusions or blood products who might possibly have become infected with the virus through the receipt of such transfusions or products were given the option of being tested free of charge. This test was also ELISA negative and this result was reported to the person's general practitioner immediately. The board did not conduct any further testing for the hepatitis C virus in respect of this person, and did not refer her for treatment at St. James's Hospital.

The person concerned has been treated in St. James's Hospital for a number of complaints. She first attended the special hepatitis C clinic in July 1996, having been referred by her general practitioner who understood that a positive diagnosis for the virus had recently been made by the consultant in the clinic although this was not the case. A further test was carried out by the consultant in order to reassure the person concerned and this test has also proved to be negative.

The person's medical chart was available for the appointment of the person concerned at the ENT clinic on 30 August. The chart was not available for her appointment in the hepatology clinic on 3 October. Despite intensive searches, the chart could not be traced and a temporary chart was created. On 9 December the chart reappeared in the medical records area and it has not been possible to ascertain its whereabouts during the intervening period.