Page Section: Left Content Column
Page Section: Centre Content Column
Delay in MRI during medical radiation technologists' strike (07HDC05942)
Download Delay in MRI during medical radiation technologists' strike (07HDC05942) (PDF 170Kb)
(07HDC05942, 26 June 2008)
Public hospital ~ District health board ~ Emergency
department ~ Medical radiation technologist ~ MRI ~ Life-preserving
service ~ Deterioration ~ Cerebellar bleed ~ Strike ~
Neurosurgery
A man was referred to the emergency department at a public
hospital after a consultation at an after-hours medical service, as
his speech was sluggish and he was unable to maintain his balance.
At 4pm he was seen by a neurologist, who advised that he needed an
MRI head scan. However, because the medical radiation technologists
(MRTs) at the hospital were on strike, the neurologist suggested
that he go to the local private hospital for the MRI. The day
before the strike started, information had been sent to clinical
staff about life-preserving services and the process for recourse
to MRTs. The neurologist did not consider that the clinical
situation fell within the criteria for life-preserving
services.
The MRI equipment at the private hospital was out of action, and
the man was admitted to the public hospital neurology ward for
observation. The next morning his condition began to deteriorate,
and at 3.40pm the neurologist was advised that there had been a
significant deterioration in the man's condition. The neurologist
assessed him, advised him of the need for an urgent MRI, and spoke
to the chief medical officer in accordance with the process for
requesting radiology services during the strike. An urgent MRI was
performed and the report was issued at 6pm. It showed features
consistent with an acute cerebellar bleed. At 7pm the man underwent
urgent surgery to drain a cerebellar abscess, and was transferred
to the intensive care unit for his postoperative recovery.
The public hospital had an obligation to ensure that it provided
services in a manner that minimised the potential harm to patients,
and to ensure that patients received well co-ordinated services
during the MRT strike. A DHB's legal obligation to ensure that
services of an appropriate standard are provided to patients is not
suspended during a strike. However, a provider can only be expected
to take "reasonable actions in the circumstances" prevailing at the
time. On balance, in the exceptional circumstances of the strike,
it was held that the hospital's response was reasonable, and that
it did not breach the Code.
This case highlights the incontrovertible fact that patient
safety is jeopardised during strikes by health professionals,
despite contingency plans for the provision of life-preserving
services.
Page Section: Right Content Column
Top of Page