16 November 2015,
admin wrote: It’s therefore time that the GMC started looking out for the welfare of patients instead of protecting negligent and unregulated surgeons."
This morning I finally received the decision from the GMC re my complaint against Optimax surgeon (Dr Wilbert Hoe) who irreparably damaged my eyes on 18 February 2011.
Two months overdue, the GMC apologised for the delay a few weeks ago, explaining that my case was still with the case examiners. I wasn’t surprised as they of course know who I am - and what I do with any information I consider to be of public interest!
The decision is as I expected, the same one everyone receives in response to their complaint against the surgeon who damaged their eyes!
It might sound odd, but I’m ecstatic with this decision!
I have been openly critical of the GMC for a number of years, anxious to expose the organisation as 'not fit for purpose'… and inadvertently they’ve now opened a can of worms that I will use to my advantage and publicise in every way I can!
I have nothing but praise for the ‘Independent Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon’ instructed by the GMC to provide an expert opinion. (I have asked for his/her name to be provided.)
Had I not settled out of court with Russell Ambrose but instead gone into litigation, with this as a medicolegal report I have no doubt that I'd have won the case on the grounds of lack of informed consent alone, as did Stephanie Holloway v Optical Express/Joanna McGraw!
At a later date I will publish the report in full, but until then, a few examples of the expert’s opinion - who was very critical of the high street industry:
•
Mr H’s pre-operative preparations appear to be minimal and there is no record of Mr H obtaining an adequate and appropriate history.
•
The limited amount of discussion pre-operatively meant that Mr H did not adequately counsel Patient A (me) regarding her surgical expectations. This unfortunately is the standard practice in the high volume environment of Laser Refractive surgery which distorts the concept of a patient consultant discourse that results in a management policy. The practitioner turns up to activate the laser as others, less qualified, have assessed the patient and their ability to pay for the procedure. Therefore, the discussion on management falls seriously below that expected of a consultant ophthalmologist.
•
The pre-operative consent was as already indicated not entirely obtained by Mr H and what was obtained by Mr H was a last minute alteration to management and certainly did not conform to the Royal College Guidelines and good medical practice for refractive surgery.
•
It would appear that very little discussion was conducted post-operatively with Mr H, most of the discussion has been with the management and optometry staff within Optimax. This lack of post-operative communication and support falls seriously below the standards expected of a consultant ophthalmologist.
(NB: I met Dr Hoe for the first time on the day of surgery and have had NO discussion with him since)
•
Mr H’s records are of a personal nature non-existent, he has depended entirely on Optimax records which are in the main pre-populated lists and boxed answers which attempt to remove the need for adequate clinical history and assessment within a case like this would appear to create an inadequate series of clinical records. The lack of clinical comment in the written form is a serious lack of standard, which in this case falls seriously below the standard that is expected of an independent practitioner working in this field...
•
As the consent appears to be countersigned by a non-medical professional and consent for Mitomycin C (MMC) was immediately prior to treatment, these activities fell seriously below the standard expected of a reasonably competent ophthalmologist/refraction surgeon.
It goes on, with the expert highly critical of the practices within the high street industry.
In their '
Reasons for decision' section, the GMC noted, '
We do not underestimate the distress Ms Rodoy has experienced. Her complaint about Mr Hoe (essentially that he did not check she understood the risks associated with her treatment) is serious. Her evidence about this is largely contradicted by the records and, in particular, emails from Mr Hoe and the optometrist who saw her.*
The expert’s criticisms appear to be as much about the laser refractive surgery industry as about Mr Hoe and, if the expert’s description of industry practices is accurate, we are concerned that the expert may have assessed him against an unrealistic benchmark** for purposes of our decision.'
*I have seen no such emails and have asked the GMC for copies. If they exist Optimax were legally bound to disclose these to me under my SAR last year.
**Speechless - these are my precious eyes we're talking about!
The final paragraph states, ‘
Further, we do not consider that there is a realistic prospect of a finding of impairment solely in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.’
Oh dear, that doesn't inspire confidence or trust in the GMC!
There are major flaws in the fourteen page report and I am challenging their decision.
In 2015 I also lodged a complaint with the GOC against Optimax optometrist Swati Malkan.
The GOC similarly dismissed my complaint against Ms Malkan, who wrote that she had no recollection of meeting me, and - I quote, ‘
I do not recall Patient A (me) and hence am reliant on my notes of the examination…'
Her five page response to my complaint was a pack of lies, obviously written by Optimax’ in-house solicitor, mostly detailing information she claimed was given to me before taking my money, that I’d been fully informed of all the risks etc…
In my (unsuccessful) appeal I pointed out that if Ms Malkan didn’t remember me then how did she know what she had discussed with me!
I have no idea how it entered the GMC investigation (I will find out), but a retrospective statement from Ms Malkan includes this,
'I remember this px v well as she stood out… In the staff room during lunch we were discussing this px as she had given a hard time to everyone involved.’
Ms Malkan has undeniably lied - to both the GOC and GMC (and of course to me in 2011)!
I have spoken with both organisations and look forward to further investigations asap