Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 May 1999

Vol. 505 No. 5

Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Review Group Report.

Theresa Ahearn

Question:

5 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Health and Children the action, if any, he will take in view of the publication of the review group report into hysterectomies undertaken by a consultant attached to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, to ensure that hospitals perform regular medical audits of these procedures and to ensure the removal of clause 5.3 (iii) in the hospital's code of ethics; and the discussions, if any, he has engaged in with the hospital and the health board concerning compensation claims which may be brought by mothers who underwent a caesarean hysterectomy in circumstances in which no such procedure should have been undertaken. [12845/99]

The report of the review group referred to by the Deputy was submitted to the North Eastern Health Board on 26 April 1999. The board has referred it to the Medical Council. The consultant obstetrician/gynaecologist in question is on administrative leave and no caesarean hysterectomies have been carried out at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, since the matter was first brought to the attention of the board last October.

Since receiving the report, the North Eastern Health Board has taken a number of steps in support of patients who may have been affected by these events. These include a helpline to advise any patient, past or present, on any queries they may have and a comprehensive range of support and counselling services for patients and their families.

Direct contact has been made by the board with the general practitioners of the patients involved to give them information and advice, and, as a precaution, the North Eastern Health Board has arranged for a systematic look-back of all records of the consultant in question prior to 1992.

The North Eastern Health Board and local hospital management are committed to facilitating health professionals to implement all necessary measures to meet the current requirements for quality assurance. Some improvements have or are being introduced by the hospital. These include revised protocols and procedures within the maternity unit, particularly the delivery suite, to ensure best practice.

All staff at the hospital are co-operating fully with the North Eastern Health Board in implementing agreed protocols and procedures, including audits of these procedures. The measures also include: new arrangements, commencing in June, for the management of antenatal clinic admission protocols regarding the assessment and discharge of women who are not in labour; a twice-daily reporting system involving consultants and midwifery staff; improvements in the consultative process regarding the management of midwifery and obstetrical care; and the introduction of customer care satisfaction surveys.

Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, has been in public ownership since May 1997. The question of amending the code of ethics that applied when the hospital was in independent ownership does not arise. The ethical code of any medical practitioner is defined by the Medical Council and the law of the land. The clinical care of a patient is solely a matter for the individual consultant concerned. The question of compensation in this case would be a matter for consideration by the relevant bodies acting on behalf of the consultant in question.

There is such a race to fit in questions within the time allowed. I thank the Minster for his response. How many women had inappropriate hysterectomies in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital? Have these women been so informed and if not, why not? Will the Minister expand on the discussions he mentioned? What discussions did he have with the hospital or the health board about compensation for these women? Can he confirm if any proceedings have been taken against the hospital or health board by the women who were so badly affected?

This question refers to the report, the code of ethics and so forth. I can make the detailed figures sought by the Deputy available to her. They were included in previous replies to parliamentary questions but due to the time constraints I will not search for them now.

Legal proceedings that might be taken are a matter for the patients concerned, the consultant and the bodies which represent him professionally.

The most important question is whether the women who unfortunately had this inappropriate surgery have been informed.

They have been informed.

Compensation is generally not enough for the people who have suffered such trauma. Will the hospital or the health board accept negligence in this case? Will the Minister also make it clear if the ethical code in the hospital will be changed to permit procedures relating to contraception to be carried out, given that the hospital is now a public hospital?

Since May 1997 this hospital has been in public ownership. I am advised that the question of amending the code of ethics that applied when the hospital was in independent ownership does not arise. The ethical code of any medical practitioner is defined by the Medical Council and the law of the land.

With regard to the Deputy's earlier question, these are legal matters between the individuals concerned and the bodies which represent professionals and consultants when situations such as this arise. They will be dealt with accordingly. There is no question of negligence being charged against the hospital.

That concludes priority questions. Before dealing with ordinary questions, I remind Members of the order adopted by the House in relation to ordinary questions. The time limits are six minutes per question, two minutes for the Minister's initial reply and four minutes for supplementary questions and replies. It should be borne in mind that during that four minutes, no question or reply can exceed one minute. The Chair has no option but to apply that order of the House strictly.

Top
Share