Written Answers. - Medical Records.
Tony Gregory
Ceist:
258
Mr. Gregory
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
if he will have arrangements made for a further investigation into the alleged altering of medical records by the Western Health Board, arising from the issues raised in a media report (details supplied).
[26820/00]
The background to the case is as follows. The woman concerned tested positive for hepatitis C in October 1997. However, a serious dispute emerged in this case between the woman and the Western Health Board regarding the source of her hepatitis C infection. The woman herself believes that the source was infected anti-D and is of the strong view that anti-D was administered to her following the birth of her child in Castlebar hospital in March 1993. She alleges that a medical record was later altered to denote that anti-D was not administered. The board stated that their medical records show that anti-D was not administered to the woman while she was under their care in March 1993.
Tests carried out by the independent laboratory jointly run by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and the Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Edinburgh, indicated that the source of the woman's hepatitis C infection was not the anti-D product manufactured by the Blood Transfusion Service Board. The laboratory's findings are disputed by the woman.
The board arranged for the woman's solicitors to gain access to all the hospital records relating to the case, including medical, nursing and laboratory records in their original format. I understand that the solicitors also met members of the hospital staff, including medical, nursing, laboratory staff and management, who explained the hospital's practices, procedures and record keeping arrangements in relation to the administration of anti-D. The hospital subsequently forwarded copies of any documentation requested by the solicitors.
The woman's family requested the Garda to investigate whether anti-D was administered to the woman in Castlebar Hospital, and whether her hospital records had been materially altered. The Garda visited the hospital on 28 October and the 16 November 1998 in relation to this investigation, and, at the request of the hospital, took a number of records away for forensic examination. Neither I nor the Western Health Board have been informed of the results of that examination; in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to seek such information from the Garda authorities. However, I should say that the Western Health Board accepts that the woman's record was amended but is fully satisfied that the amended record reflects the accurate position, which is that the woman never received anti-D. The board does not accept that the record had been inappropriately changed and the consultant in charge of the woman's care while in Castlebar Hospital is adamant that the woman never received the anti-D product.
With regard to the woman's desire for a decision on the cause of her hepatitis C infection, my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, indicated on numerous occasions that he considered that the hepatitis C compensation tribunal was the most appropriate forum in which to have this matter resolved. The tribunal was established by the Oireachtas and has a statutory remit to determine causation on the balance of probabilities. In addition, the tribunal has the confidence of all four of the support groups representing persons infected with hepatitis C through the administration within the State of infected blood and blood products. Indeed, approximately 1,400 individuals have had their claims determined by the tribunal to date. Of the 1,400 claims heard, only 10 – or less than 1% – have been rejected by the tribunal. In June 1998, an offer was made to the woman concerned to arrange an early hearing on the causation issue alone, independent of considerations of compensation. In addition, as the woman is now living abroad, my Department offered as an exceptional measure to arrange financial assistance for herself and her family to facilitate their attendance at the compensation tribunal.
In June 2000 the woman's legal representatives informed my Department that their client would be attending the hepatitis C compensation tribunal, and the necessary arrangements were made by my Department to cover the expenses, totalling £4,000, which she would incur in attending the tribunal. As the hepatitis C compensation tribunal is independent in its operation of both myself and my Department, I am not in a position to confirm the outcome of the hearing. I understand from media reports, however, that the woman's case was withdrawn from the compensation tribunal before a determination had been made and that a case may now be taken by the woman to the High Court. If this is the case, I would urge her to return to the compensation tribunal which provides an effective, informal and non-adversarial route for persons with hepatitis C to obtain redress. A decision to return to the compensation tribunal would in no way debar the woman from proceeding to the High Court at a later stage if she should choose to do so; claimants are only required to discontinue legal proceedings if they accept the compensation tribunal's award. It is entirely a matter for the woman herself and her legal representatives to decide whether they wish to avail of the compensation tribunal but I believe that it is the best option for having the case resolved as quickly as possible.
