Surgeon has refused to operate on litigious patient

[justasking111]

Long story, friends OH had hip op. all went wrong afterwards infection set in was in hospital three months on iv antibiotics, when home had antibiotics, further surgery needed. Fast forward a few months surgeon has refused to do a further op. because my friend an expert HR person had logged each call, e mail so thoroughly with the hospital admin. and surgeon challenging them when they bull shitted, that the result is he is on morphine which the surgeon will not prescribe will have to go to GP. Now patient is in his fifties not elderly with no prospect of any kind of care. He is going to die isn`t he.

My question is is it reasonable if you question the medical system is it ok to just be kicked to the curb.

AIBU he should be kicked to the kerb
YANBU he should get the op.

I read a while ago that half NHS budget goes on legal costs - but it is hard to believe it is that bad. Also people in UK are not very litigious.

@justasking111...My mom did who also lives in Wales. This is not that far out of ordinary and almost common. Its a risk of surgery. Anytime you have surgery you are at the risk of infection. Sometimes those infections are quite severe. It doesn't mean malpractice. I would also refuse to see a litigious patient

Yes, of course the consultant can refuse to personally treat you after a complaint leading to legal action. Speak to the NHS for another consultant to be assigned. Failing that, speak to Pals.

Being “litigious” isn’t a good thing. As soon as you indicate you are suing the consultant for medical negligence, of course the relationship between you both becomes irreparably broken as you have chosen the nuclear option. The consultant doesn’t want to risk further legal action or further harm to their career etc with subsequent issues with you. They would actually be legally advised to stop treating you due to the complaint.

Talk to a solicitor. Not this forum.

@GeorgiaGirl52

In the US it is expected that any doctor will refuse to treat a patient who has sued or threatened to sue. The assumption is that if they have a history of filing suits, they are unlikely to be satisfied with another doctor. ALSO, many doctors will refuse to accept patients who are litigation attorneys or employees of law firms that accept suits against medical representatives. In our state a lawyer's pregnant secretary had to drive 200 miles to the nearest obstetrician because none of those nearby would treat her, since her employer had filed a suit for a client against a doctor.

That was because of conflict of interest. Its not that the OB refused to see her, its because they were not allowed to see her.

It sounds like he may actually not be fit for surgery. If they do a revision when there is active infection ("his flesh is rotting away") the new joint will get infected too.

But quite aside from that, no, if the relationship has completely broken down, it's best all round if he moves to another team. You can't provide decent care to somebody who doesn't trust you and is actively combative in consultations. I'd expect the original team to pass him on to either a colleague, or the neighboring trust (depending how wide-ranging the complaints are). He shouldn't just be left with no care. But continuing to see a team he blames for his previous poor outcome isn't likely to make him happy either.

Post-op wound infections are an unfortunate risk from any surgery; it doesn't follow that the surgeon was at fault or negligent in any way.

If the patient still has a deepseated wound infection from first op, and it's resisting anti-biotic treatment, that is a very good medical reason for NOT doing any further surgery while the infection is still in his system.

 It sounds as if  OP has not quite grasped the full story  .

What did the hospital team "bullshit" them on?

What were the logs that were kept; did they admit to errors and then back track? Did they suggest a treatment and then back track?

What actually happened? Please try to write it clearly with punctuation in the correct places because your OP makes it hard to follow what actually happened.

Is the surgery he requires to remove the infected flesh etc? Or is it to give him a new joint?

What treatment are they actually offering? And what surgery has been denied?

As nicely as possible, OP, you have obviously have no idea what's going on. Either medically or legally.
By all means, support your friends emotionally and practically, but realise that you haven't got the whole picture. (I'm not saying that your friends are not telling you, but that you may not fully understand)

Terrifying. I’d be tempted to get on a train and go to best hospital in London and go into A&E if he truly has a septic wound that is being ignored.

My DF slipped, fell and broke his hip while on holiday in the Caribbean. The hip op didn't work and he needed a revision back in the UK. He had to wait a horribly painful year for it, but it was done and his quality of life is so much better. He was lucky he didn't have an infection to deal with.
He had to wait ages, despite knowing the system as a retired doc himself. The surgeon just won't operate if it's too risky.

if he has not sued how would they now about the notes ?
And i agree it sounds like surgery is not suitable until the infection is clear?
what does their GP say ?

This sounds like half a story...

Aren't NHS surgeons insured by NHS so they don't have to sell their house if they lose a malpractice claim against them? And private surgeons take out their own insurance?

Infection is always possible after a surgical procedure, that's why they warn you on the consent form as well.

And yes, he cannot have further surgery unless that's under control, and it seems it isn't.

He will have signed a consent form saying that one of the recognised risks of this operation is infection, and that all steps will be taken to minimise the risk, but it cannot be fully excluded.

Unless A) this form wasn't done (which, I would bet my house is not the case) or B) there is evidence of the surgeon going against normal practice and thus causing infection (still unlikely) then this is an unfortunate but entirely possible complication from surgery which more often than not is not the fault of the surgeon.

Just because it has in your words 'gone wrong' does not mean that the surgeon or hospital have actually done anything wrong.

If the flesh is rotting on he is on antibiotics then it sounds like one of the MRSA infections which is incredibly hard to treat. With MRSA I think very very few hospitals will be keen to do an op because of the low chance of success and the risk of bringing the infection into a theatre for future patients.

One of the very scary things is that the number of untreatable infections is increasing - perhaps in 20-30 yrs time we will have more untreatable infections than treatable ones.

Quite honestly OP you do not have medical training, you are going on 3rd party hearsay, you don't know enough to make accusations and it's possible you could yourself end up in trouble for making unfounded accusations. Be careful OP.

In my personal experience (resulting in the death of an otherwise healthy 30 year old man) HCPs close ranks and throw others under the bus. Surgeons do not appreciate being held to account.
Your friend needs a new surgeon

Or is the post op treatment that went wrong?

A lot of this is unclear.

A surgeon may refuse to operate on a patient for a number of reasons - it may be that the surgery is unlikely to be effective, or that the risk to the patient is too high due to them being weakened or unwell, or that the balance of probabilities indicates that the surgery will be more harmful than helpful.

It would be unusual for a health board to refuse to operate on a patient simply because they had raised a complaint. A vexatious litigant is one thing, but your friend hasn’t even sued so he wouldn’t be considered as such.

Are you sure of exactly what’s going on here? Is it possible that the health board is reluctant to recommend further surgery due to the potential for complications or a poor outcome and your friends have interpreted this as being the result of their complaint? That would be much, much more likely.

It's general practice with dentists not to do treatment on an infected tooth until antibiotics have cleared up the infection. I imagine that it's even more important with an infected wound around a hip replacement. They would be very foolish to attempt such a thing.

This is either made up, someone has only told half a story or they have left out important details deliberately.

Half a story.

And a poorly written one at that.

Are you under Hywel Dda by any chance? I understand if you don't want to answer in case of outing yourself but if you are then I fully sympathize. YANBU

Wales regulations are different to England, but in England (and I assume Wales), he would have been Informed of the risks (and likely these included infections requiring along stay in hospital) and asked to sign a consent letter.

There are sadly potential risks with any surgery that is no fault of the surgeon. The surgeon might now have decided that any surgery of the hip is likely to result in more risks hence refusing to operate. In this instance, seeking a 2nd and even potentially 3rd opinion is the way to go.

"my friend an expert HR person"

but likely no medical knowledge or understanding
including the risks of the operation they agreed to and that infection can happen without negligence

There are many medical reasons why treatment may not be possible until later, as pp have explained
but your friends have jumped to the idea of it being "punishment"