Page Section: Centre Content Column
Provision of insufficient information to obtain informed consent (13HDC00538)
Download Provision of insufficient information to obtain informed consent (13HDC00538) (PDF 69Kb)
General surgeon ~ Public hospital ~ District health board ~
Colonoscopy ~ Informed consent ~ Information regarding options ~
Rights 6(1)(b), 7(2)
An elderly man was referred to a DHB surgical outpatient clinic
because of a change in his bowel habits, and because he had rectal
bleeding. The man was seen by a general surgeon. A CT scan of the
man's large intestine found a 17mm polyp in the sigmoid colon, and
Approximately two months later the surgeon performed a
colonoscopy, and a large polyp was removed. Histological
examination indicated cancer within the stalk of the polyp with
invasive tumour present at the diathermy margins.
The surgeon concluded that the best option for the man was
surgery. He did not inform the man of other options or of the risks
of surgery for him. He did not discuss the man's case with his
colleagues or at a multidisciplinary meeting.
Two months after the colonoscopy the surgeon removed a section
of the man's sigmoid colon and performed a primary stapled
anastomosis (join). The man stayed in hospital for 18 days
postoperatively after which he was discharged.
Almost three months following the man's discharge, a second
surgeon performed ileostomy reversal surgery on the man. Following
the ileostomy, the man deteriorated and three days postoperatively
a third surgeon decided to conduct a laparotomy to exclude any
anastomotic leak. The third surgeon recorded that he had discussed
the high risks associated with the procedure with the family, and
that the man was likely to need intensive care and might not
survive the surgery. The man's wife consented to the laparotomy,
but there is no evidence that she was the man's legal
representative or that he was incompetent to consent himself.
Following the surgery, despite medical intervention, the man
failed to respond and continued to deteriorate until, sadly, he
died four days postoperatively.
It was held that the man had the right to the information that a
reasonable consumer in his circumstances would expect to receive,
including an explanation of the treatment options available and an
assessment of the expected risks, side effects, benefits and costs
of each option. The first surgeon did not provide this information
to the man following his diagnosis. Accordingly, the first surgeon
breached Right 6(1)(b). Without this information, the man was not
in a position to give informed consent to the surgery performed by
the first surgeon. Accordingly, it follows that the first surgeon
also breached Right 7(1).
Adverse comment was made about a number of shortcomings in the
care provided to the man by the DHB.