Page Section: Left Content Column
Page Section: Centre Content Column
Failure to diagnose subarachnoid haemorrhage (02HDC18871)
Download Failure to diagnose subarachnoid haemorrhage (02HDC18871) (PDF 12Kb)
(02HDC18871, 15 December 2003)
General practitioner ~ Standard
of care ~ Professional standards ~ Subarachnoid haemorrhage ~
Record-keeping ~ Rights 4(1), 4(2)
A man complained that on two occasions a GP failed to diagnose his
78-year-old mother's brain haemorrhage, despite him querying the
possibility on the second occasion.
The woman had suffered a sudden, severe headache, with vomiting
and disorientation. Her family reported her symptoms to the GP and
asked him to visit. As he was busy in his surgery he sent his
practice nurse to assess her. The GP visited that evening and made
a provisional diagnosis of a viral illness. He gave her an
anti-emetic and pain relief, and advised the family to call if her
condition deteriorated. Three days later her son took her to the
GP's surgery because she was still unwell, although her headache
had diminished. The GP examined her and confirmed his earlier
diagnosis. When the woman's son queried the possibility of a brain
haemorrhage, the GP reassured him and referred his mother to a
geriatrician. Three days later the woman's symptoms were unchanged,
and her son took her to a public hospital, where a subarachnoid
haemorrhage was diagnosed.
Although subarachnoid haemorrhage is not always easy to diagnose,
and occurs in only 25% of patients presenting to general practice
with severe sudden headache, the woman had what the Commissioner's
expert advisor described as symptoms "so indicative of subarachnoid
haemorrhage that the diagnosis should immediately be considered by
every doctor hearing it". She did not have any supporting signs of
a viral illness and, in the advisor's opinion, the sudden and
severe onset of her symptoms should have prompted the GP to
consider subarachnoid haemorrhage as a differential diagnosis. It
was also noted that the woman had a recent history of a high
systolic blood pressure. A minimal examination under these
circumstances should comprise checking for mental alertness, neck
stiffness, and altered limb tone and reflexes. The GP's notes do
not indicate that the patient's blood pressure was checked or a
neurological examination performed.
At the follow-up consultation, the GP should have re-evaluated his
previous diagnosis of viral illness, and taken a blood pressure
reading and carried out a comprehensive neurological examination.
When the son raised the possibility of a subarachnoid haemorrhage,
it would also have been useful to have discussed with the patient a
course of action to follow if she experienced further symptoms that
might indicate cerebral bleeding.
It was held that the GP breached Rights 4(1) and 4(2) in failing
to perform and appropriately document an adequate examination of
the patient, and in not considering a subarachnoid haemorrhage in
his differential diagnosis.
Page Section: Right Content Column
Top of Page