Page Section: Left Content Column
Page Section: Centre Content Column
Management of referrals for specialist urological services (09HDC01040)
Download Management of referrals for specialist urological services (09HDC01040) (PDF 142Kb)
(09HDC01040, 23 April
2010)
Provincial hospital ~ District health board ~ Urology
services ~ Referral triaging ~ Arranging tests and appointments ~
Sharing information ~ Standard of care ~ Complaint handling ~
Rights 4(1), 4(5), 10(3)
The friend of a 79-year-old woman complained about delays in
arranging specialist urological services in a provincial hospital.
The woman attended the hospital's emergency department (ED) with
urinary retention, and the following day she was referred to the
urology service. She returned to ED seven times the following month
with retention or catheter problems. Further referrals were made to
the urology service. The next month the woman was seen by a
visiting urologist from the DHB's contracted provider of non-acute
urology services. The urologist did not have two of the three
referrals, ED records, or the results of tests that should have
been carried out prior to the appointment. Arrangements were made
for a review in five months' time. The woman continued to have
problems and arrangements were eventually made to bring forward the
follow-up appointment. Tests following this appointment confirmed
that the woman had aggressive and advanced bladder cancer. She died
three and a half months later.
It was held that the DHB's systems for ensuring timely access to
specialist urology care were not adequate. There were deficiencies
in relation to referral triaging, arranging appointments and
necessary tests, and ensuring providers had access to relevant
information when needed. The delay in diagnosis and treatment is
unlikely to have changed the outcome for the patient, but earlier
intervention may have reduced her suffering. The patient's friend
had also complained to the DHB about the delay. The DHB took four
and a half months to respond to the complaint, and its response did
not reflect a fair investigation of his concerns. The DHB was found
in breach of Rights 4(1), 4(5) and 10(3).
Page Section: Right Content Column
Top of Page