• Wed
  • Dec 24, 2014
  • Updated: 11:29pm
NewsHong Kong

Medical Council demands new misconduct body amid fears errors swept under the carpet

Medical Council chairman calls for Hospital Authority to be stripped of power to probe doctors' errors amid fears cases are being ignored

PUBLISHED : Monday, 11 August, 2014, 11:24pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 12 August, 2014, 8:34am

The Medical Council is to fight for the removal of the Hospital Authority's power to investigate suspected doctors' misconduct after repeated calls for the authority to refer more cases to the watchdog fell on deaf ears.

In what he admits will be an uphill battle, council chairman Professor Joseph Lau Wan-yee will lobby the medical profession and the government for a central complaints committee to probe cases in both the public and private systems.

Lau says his move was prompted by concerns that many cases of gross negligence, misconduct or incompetence may have been swept under the carpet by the authority. Serious cases are expected to be referred to the council, which regulates medical professionals' conduct.

News of his proposal came as the public United Christian Hospital revealed a serious medical blunder yesterday in which a pathologist misread the health reports of 118 patients, leading to 17 receiving the wrong treatment.

In the five years to last year the authority referred just four cases to the council for further investigation, council figures show.

In 2012 and last year there were no referrals at all, although the authority reported 136 and 130 medical incidents in 2011/12 and 2012/13 respectively.

The reported incidents included surgical items left in patients, procedures performed on wrong patients or body parts, medication errors and errors resulting in permanent loss of function or even death.

"All these years there has been no improvement in this regard. There were many cases that should have been referred to us but we received none," Lau said in an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post.

"Do you really believe that there was not even one case of gross negligence or misconduct in public hospitals in the past that warranted our investigation?"

The authority did not respond to the Post when asked about the number of requests for referrals to the council, the number of complaints about public doctors' misconduct or the number of internal disciplinary actions each year. It said only that it did not "specifically collate" the number of referrals to the council.

A spokesman added it would refer "appropriate cases" to the council after its internal investigations.

The absence of referrals in 2012 and 2013 occurred despite a 2010 letter from the council asking the authority to improve the "unsatisfactory referral" of cases.

Lau was particularly disappointed at the authority's continued inaction in a medical blunder case in which a public oncologist was found to have caused a patient's death by wrongly administering an injection in 2007.

The case was not referred by the authority and was only brought to the council's attention by an anonymous complainant three years later. The doctor was disqualified for two years in a disciplinary hearing in 2012.

In the judgment, the then-chairwoman of the council, Professor Felice Lieh-Mak, criticised the authority for referring only a "disproportionately small number of cases" to the council, saying "there is much room for improvement on this matter".

Lau claimed the best way to resolve this conflict was to set up a central committee to handle all complaints of medical misconduct. It would refer serious cases to the council.

Barrister Neville Sarony SC, who specialises in medical malpractice lawsuits, raised concerns that keeping cases of medical misconduct under wraps may allow the doctors responsible to repeat the same mistakes.

"Perhaps the problems lie in the fact the Hospital Authority is so anxious to protect its reputation in relation to the entire spectrum," he said.

"They tend to put the shutters up, and they will only refer something if they really feel they have no choice.

"The doctor concerned might go on making the same mistakes or believing what he was doing was right or excusable. If you have somebody who is liable to errors, he could make the same mistakes again. Are they safe to be left on their own, unsupervised?" Sarony asked.


Examples of medical blunders at Hong Kong hospitals

August 4, 2014: A 50-year-old man, who had high blood sugar, diabetes and heart problems, died six days after he was given at least twice the amount of the medication he should have received at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

May 21, 2013: A woman transplant patient was given a heart that did not match her blood type at Queen Mary Hospital, with at least two senior doctors failing to identify the mismatch before the surgery. Although the woman's condition remained stable months after the operation, the wrong heart could still result in a fatal rejection.

April 14, 2013: An 84-year-old patient, who had an infection in his dislocated prosthetic hip, died in Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital after he was prescribed an antibiotic to which he had an adverse reaction.

A remedy to be taken with care

Professor Joseph Lau Wan-yee knows that his controversial proposal for a central complaint committee to handle all complaints of medical misconduct - involving both private and public doctors - is bound to meet strong opposition.

But the chairman of the Medical Council is confident it is a fairer and more effective way to safeguard the public interest and restore confidence in the Hospital Authority, which has been accused of being over-protective of its public doctors.

"Any system should be fair. [The Medical Council] may not agree to the standards set by [the Hospital Authority]. Our standards may differ," Lau said.

"It's unreasonable that public doctors aren't subject to the council's inquiries. A central complaints system would therefore be fairer to all parties."

Under his reform blueprint, the new central committee would screen all complaints and then refer what it considers to be serious allegations to the council to follow up. Minor cases would be recommended for mediation, while unresolved cases would be presented to the council upon the complainants' request.

"Sometimes patients just want an apology from the doctor, or a guarantee that he or she will not do the same thing to others. Mediation could offer patients alternatives to settle these minor conflicts," he said.

Lau said his proposal would first be presented to doctors' groups and the Department of Justice for their comments. He would then decide whether to submit it to the Food and Health Bureau.

His idea comes as the government is looking at introducing changes to the medical watchdog to speed up the council's complaints-handling process.

A spokesman for the bureau said it was actively considering a proposal the council submitted in June to increase the number of lay assessors to deal with the rising number of complaints.

Dr Louis Shih Tai-cho, president of the Medical Association, cautiously welcomed Lau's suggestion.

Mediation could offer the council an alternative to costly legal battles for dealing with complaints, he said. But the council should review the definition of professional misconduct and consider setting up a penalty system for minor misdemeanours, he added.

"Any misbehaviour by doctors can now be deemed as professional misconduct, and all such cases end up in costly court battles at the council.

"The result is an adversarial relationship between the doctor and the patient," Shih said.

"As more disputes arise, serious cases concerning gross misconduct are delayed at the council and public interest will ultimately be harmed."

Patients' Rights Association spokesman Tim Pang Hung-cheong said that a mediation process for complaints would be meaningful only if the doctor involved was required to attend the discussion along with the complainant.

The Medical Council receives about 500 complaints a year, but only an average of 22 cases are moved forward to disciplinary hearings.

Last year, the council heard a total of 46 cases, with the shortest hearing lasting only three days and the longest going on for nine days.

A Hospital Authority spokesman said it currently conducts its own internal investigations and refers complaints to the council only when it is deemed to be "appropriate".

Lawmaker Dr Leung Ka-lau, who represents the medical sector, said it was unrealistic to expect the authority to refer cases to the council for a disciplinary inquiry when the authority had a vested self-interest.

"The whole system under the authority may collapse if a doctor accused of professional misconduct lays the blame on the authority," he said.

Leung also said Lau's reform proposal might provoke a backlash from doctors, as they might embrace "defensive medicine" to avoid making risky but effective treatment decisions.

Emily Tsang and Cannix Yau


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

No foreign doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators need apply. Sorry you are not club members and might bring up mistakes as they happen. Plus we locals might loose face if you know more than us.
Its the biggest joke for Lau to complain that the HA has not referred enough cases to the Medical Council (MC) as if the MC is a model of efficiency and its work, decisions, and punishment is praiseworthy and respected by the community.
Far from it. The educated are often outraged and sickened by the protectionist behaviour of the MC which soft-sells every misdemeanor it rules on.
As for efficiency, the Patients' Rights Association spokesman points out that the MC gets over 500 complaints each year but brings only an average of 22 to the disciplinary hearing stage; last year's 49 hearings was a high.
If the MC cannot even manage the numbers on hand and convince the public of its credibility it is hardly in a moral high ground to accuse the HA for under-reporting errors. It smells of a red-herring to divert attention from the rotten and often laughable action and penalties meted out to 'convicted' errants.
Foreign doctors , often Consultants with years of training and experience, are insulted by being required to take written tests and practicals and do a year as Houseman before getting a job. Why aren't local doctors who kill patients, disable patients or mess up operations required to go back to full-time re-training and pass an examination in their specialty before they are allowed back into practice or as specialists? Are locals superior? Does a one or two year suspension improve the doctor's skill and knowledge?
'Medical Council demands new misconduct body amid fears errors swept under the carpet'
That carpet must be bulging by now.
If this was olden day Japan, the staff would then proceed to take out a knife and gut himself.
Saw this on the news and he sadly didn't make me feel that they are slightly sorry, just annoyed that it's been exposed.
Private Doctors are doing everything they can to prevent the Public Hospital system getting fixed. Protectionism is all about $$$$$.
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."
Oaths, ethics mean nothing to these greedy private practice doctors and those protecting their own self interests. Do you recall receiving a shotgun treatment for your last sickness that required buying several drugs in your prescription conveniently sold to you by your doctor? In the case of the United Christian hospital doctor, malpractice seems likely, and for this to happen to so many patients, likely should warrant equal punishment for the seriousness of her mistakes with the removal of her license to practice. An impartial third party is absolutely necessary to prevent conflicts!
Crown a group as an authority than it behaves like a king with power over others.
What a backwater city Hong Kong has become. We have bodies of authority in this and that. But all managed by people contrary to true authority as they know little and has little authority when strip of their artificial authority.
A name means everything in Hong Kong. So God helps us all in Hong Kong.
The Pathologist involved is obviously incompetent. But the question is, where did all the experienced Pathologist go? The private sector? If there are not enough experienced Pathologists in Hong Kong, then why can't the Hospital Authority hire these experienced Doctors from overseas? Why can't there be 2 Pathologists to check each case and they both must sign off?
The public system is so short handed it is time now, for patient's welfare, to allow foreign Doctors to be allowed to practice in public hospitals on longer term contracts. Private Doctors can carry on driving expensive sports cars and playing golf.
Salus aegroti suprema lex.
what difference would a new medical misconduct body do, still all the same guys and buddies on the new board.
So now the Medical Council is acting! That is new! For decades no doctors were ever justly persecuted from malpractice and this country club is a safe haven for doctors to drink fine wine and recruit fresh grads to hold a secret ceremony to swear allegiance to this cult and forcing them to shout the council's motto "We Protect Our Own"! Of course I am using a metaphor that rightly depicts what is happening behind those doors.
With the recent high profile case and public anger against the Council, this could never be a better time to find a scapegoat to condemn not because they felt they are bound by their duty BUT because they need to in order survive the heat.
QUOTE "Lau says his move was prompted by concerns that many cases of gross negligence, misconduct or incompetence may have been swept under the carpet by the authority."
What's with the theatrics? Everyone knows it is you, all your partners in crime and probably most of your predecessors that are doing all the sweeping for decades. And your country club for the privileged should bear full responsibility failing to execute solid punitive actions and rely all on wrist slapping that has given the guilty a 'Get out of Jail Card' years after years. I salute you, sir, for succeeding to send a false signal that doctors are above reproach.
There should be a trial. But why bother with the tadpoles and not the Big Fishes? The debate here :Are the people who turned a blind eye just as equally guilty as the perp



SCMP.com Account