Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Surgeon'.


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Start to type the tag you want to use, then select from the list.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • All
    • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Culture
    • Improving patient safety
    • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Leadership for patient safety
    • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Patient engagement
    • Patient safety in health and care
    • Patient Safety Learning
    • Professionalising patient safety
    • Research, data and insight
    • Miscellaneous

Categories

  • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Commissioning and funding patient safety
    • Digital health and care service provision
    • Health records and plans
    • Innovation programmes in health and care
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Blogs
    • Data, research and statistics
    • Frontline insights during the pandemic
    • Good practice and useful resources
    • Guidance
    • Mental health
    • Exit strategies
    • Patient recovery
  • Culture
    • Bullying and fear
    • Good practice
    • Safety culture programmes
    • Second victim
    • Speak Up Guardians
    • Whistle blowing
  • Improving patient safety
    • Design for safety
    • Disasters averted/near misses
    • Equipment and facilities
    • Human factors (improving human performance in care delivery)
    • Improving systems of care
    • Implementation of improvements
    • Safety stories
    • Stories from the front line
    • Workforce and resources
  • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Investigations and complaints
    • Risk management and legal issues
  • Leadership for patient safety
  • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
  • Patient engagement
  • Patient safety in health and care
  • Patient Safety Learning
  • Professionalising patient safety
  • Research, data and insight
  • Miscellaneous

News

  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start
    End

Last updated

  • Start
    End

Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


First name


Last name


Country


About me


Organisation


Role

Found 57 results
  1. News Article
    A cosmetic surgeon who did not have adequate insurance for operations that went wrong has been struck off. Dr Arnaldo Paganelli worked privately for The Hospital Group in Birmingham. The Medical Practitioners' Tribunal Service ruled his actions constituted misconduct. Four women took their case to the body and the tribunal heard evidence about his time at Birmingham's Dolan Park Hospital where he made regular trips from Italy to work. Lead campaigner Dawn Knight, from Stanley, County Durham, said too much skin was removed from her eyes during an eyelift in 2012 and they became "constantly sore". She told BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme she felt relieved Dr Paganelli "cannot injure anyone else on UK soil" and called for the government to tighten regulation around cosmetic procedures to protect the public. "The process has been long, emotional and exhausting. This situation must never be repeated. After all, when are you more vulnerable than when under aesthetic at the hands of a surgeon who has no insurance?" Read full story Source: BBC News, 12 August 2020
  2. News Article
    Dozens of surgeons have reported being told by the NHS employer to stop discussing shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus crisis. The Confederation of British Surgery (CBS) said almost 70 surgeons working in major hospitals around the country had been warned off discussing a lack of PPE by their trust. A third of surgeons said the supply of PPE was inadequate at their hospital, with many complaining of inconsistent guidance, rationing of supplies and poor quality PPE when it was available. When asked if their concerns were dealt with satisfactorily, nearly a third said they were not addressed, or not effectively. A survey of 650 surgeons by the union found many were now considering changes to the way they worked as a result of the crisis – with more than half, 380, saying they would be avoiding face-to-face meetings with patients in the future. More than 40 surgeons, around 7%, said they were now considering leaving surgery altogether. Read full story Source: The Independent, 10 August 2020
  3. Event
    Surgeons are affected by adverse events. There is a paucity of data on the impact of adverse events on UK surgeons, on the factors that affect the degree and nature of this impact, and on the interventions that might ameliorate this impact either before or after an adverse event. This presentation will include early results of a UK survey and details of an RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of resilience training for surgical trainees. Registrations
  4. News Article
    Former patients of rogue breast surgeon Ian Paterson may have died of “unnatural deaths” two senior coroners have said. Senior coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, Louise Hunt, and area coroner Emma Brown have said they believe there is evidence to suspect victims of Ian Paterson, who was jailed for 17 counts of wounding with intent in 2017, died unnaturally as a result of his actions. They now plan to open four inquests into the deaths of patients who died from breast cancer after being treated by Paterson. “Following preliminary investigations, the senior and area Coroner believe there is evidence to have reason to suspect that some of those deaths may be unnatural. In accordance with the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, inquests will now be opened in relation to four former patients of Mr Paterson.” Deborah Douglas, a victim of Paterson who leads a support group in Solihull, told The Independent: "I have spoken to so many women over the years who have since died. This is what I have always known and fought for. "Paterson lied about pathology reports and people did develop secondary cancers." Read full story Source: The Independent, 4 July 2020
  5. News Article
    Surgeons have invented a new device to make it safer to diagnose some cancers during the coronavirus pandemic. Most nose and throat investigations have been cancelled due to increased risks of medics contracting COVID-19 via patients' coughs and sneezes. Two consultants have developed a device that clips over patients' masks and protects front-line workers. The West Midlands-based doctors want to raise £50,000 they say is enough to make devices for use across the NHS. Chris Coulson, a consultant ear, nose and throat surgeon at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said procedures involving an endoscope to examine the nose or throat were known to put clinicians at a significantly increased risk of contracting coronavirus. "When clinicians carry out a nasendoscopy it can make patients cough, sneeze, and splutter - which risks spreading the virus to doctors, nurses and therapists," he said. His company endoscope-i Ltd, co-founded with Ajith George, a consultant head and neck surgeon at University Hospitals North Midlands, has now developed the SNAP. It clicks on to a conventional surgical mask, creating a hole through which the clinician can pass an endoscope directly into a patient's nose. A valve means, despite there being a hole, any coughs, sneezes or splutters are caught within the mask. Mr George said: "If we can raise the money needed to produce the devices, we can keep looking after patients and ensure that diagnosis and treatment is not delayed." Read full story Source: BBC News, 11 May 2020
  6. News Article
    The Independent Inquiry into the issues raised by Paterson is yet another missed opportunity to tackle the systemic patient safety risks which lie at the heart of the private hospital business model, says David Rowland from the Centre for Health and the Public Interest in a recent BMJ Opinion article. Although the Inquiry provided an important opportunity for the hundreds of patients affected to bear witness to the pain and harm inflicted upon them it fundamentally failed as an exercise in root cause analysis. None of the “learning points” in the final report touch on the financial incentives which may have led Paterson to deliberately over treat patients. Nor do they cover the business reasons which might encourage a private hospital’s management not to look too closely. He suggests that the Inquiry report threw the responsibility for managing patient safety risks back to the patients themselves in two of its main recommendations but that it should be for the healthcare provider first and foremost to ensure that the professions that they employ are safe, competent and properly supervised, and for this form of assurance to be underpinned by a well-functioning system of licensing and revalidation by national regulatory bodies. Read full story Source: BMJ Opinion, 20 February 2020
  7. Content Article
    The Government’s response and action needed The Government’s response to the publication of the Inquiry’s report advised that they would look at these recommendations and report back ”in three to four months’ time”.[3] When doing this it is vital that these recommendations are considered holistically as part of the wider change that is needed, where patient safety is treated as a strategic purpose of healthcare. Patient safety is currently treated as one of many priorities to be weighed against each other. We think it is wrong that safety is negotiable. Patient safety must be core to the purpose of healthcare, reflected in everything that it does. We look forward to the Government’s response to the Inquiry recommendations. This must include action for change, including: Culture change Creating a culture in healthcare where staff feel safe and secure in reporting patient safety concerns, knowing their concerns will be actively welcomed, listened to and acted upon. Healthcare organisations should regularly and independently assess their organisational culture and have programmes of action to ensure a just and learning culture is in place. Staff reporting concerns An open and learning culture clearly signposting staff on how to raise concerns and that these concerns are acted upon. Harmed patients are supported Patients receive the support they need when things go wrong. ‘Harmed patient care pathways’ outline the provision of advice, guidance, practical and psychological support to patients and families. Learning from complaints All private patients have the right to mandatory independent resolution of their complaint. Patient safety applies to all, irrespective of whether care is provided for in the NHS or independent sector. #Share4Safety Organisations develop systems and measurements to improve patient safety, collecting data on patient safety and sharing learning. We strongly support the recommendation made by the Inquiry that where a healthcare professional is suspended with a perceived risk to patient safety, these concerns should be communicated to other providers that they work for. Leading and owning patient safety A new model for leadership and governance for patient safety that operates in both the NHS and independent sector. There should be high standards and behaviours set for our leaders and they should be supported by specialist patient safety experts in executive and non-executive board roles. Organisations need clear and published goals for patient safety with board focus and effectively oversight on reducing patient harm. The healthcare system operates as one coordinated system with patient safety as a core purpose. If action isn’t taken, then the Paterson Inquiry will become yet another report of unsafe care where sympathetic noises are made but no real learning and change occurs. If Government and leaders say that ‘lessons have been learned’ then they need to tell us what those lessons are, what actions they are taking, and publish updated reports on their progress and share these publicly. Without having these measures in place, how can the public and patients be assured that there won’t be future reports of unsafe care? As the Inquiry Chair said, “it is wishful thinking that this could not happen again”. References The Guardian. Ian Paterson inquiry: more than 1,000 patients had needless operations. 4 February 2020. The Right Reverend Graham Jones. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Issues raised by Paterson, February 2020. House of Commons Debate, Paterson Inquiry, 4 February 2020, Volume 671.
  8. News Article
    Shipman, Mid Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay, and now Ian Paterson, the breast surgeon that performed botched and unnecessary operations on hundreds of women. The list of NHS-related scandals has got longer. It's tempting to say the health service has not learned lessons even after a string of revelations and reviews. But is that fair? asks BBC Health Editor Hugh Pym. The inquiry, chaired by Bishop Graham James, makes clear there were failings at every level of a dysfunctional health system when it came to patient safety. The public and private health systems did not compare notes about suspicious behaviour by a consultant. Staff working with Paterson thought that his surgical methods were unusual but, perhaps cowed by being ignored after raising concerns, kept their heads down. Add to that the power and status of a surgeon in the medical world and, in the words of the report, Paterson was "hiding in plain sight". So could it happen again? James says it's clearly impossible to eliminate the activities of determined criminals in any profession. He acknowledges that some improvements have been made on policing. But he says that a decade on from the Paterson scandal, he is not convinced that medical regulators, with a combined budget of half a billion pounds a year, are doing enough collectively or collaboratively to make the system safe for patients. The review chair notes tellingly that while regulators spoke of major improvements which should identify another Paterson, some doctors and nurses had told the inquiry that it was "entirely possible that something similar could happen now". Read full story Source: BBC News, 4 February 2020
  9. Content Article
    This report is not simply a story about a rogue surgeon. It would be tragic enough if that was the case, given the thousands of people whom Ian Paterson treated. But it is far worse. It is the story of a healthcare system which proved itself dysfunctional at almost every level when it came to keeping patients safe, and where those who were the victims of Paterson’s malpractice were let down time and time again. This video report was streamed live on ITV News on 4th February 2020.
  10. Content Article
    Recommendations from the report There should be a single repository of the whole practice of consultants across England, setting out their practising privileges and other critical consultant performance data, for example, how many times a consultant has performed a particular procedure and how recently. This should be accessible and understandable to the public. It should be mandated for use by managers and healthcare professionals in both the NHS and independent sector It should be standard practice that consultants in both the NHS and the independent sector should write to patients, outlining their condition and treatment, in simple language, and copy this letter to the patient’s GP, rather than writing to the GP and sending a copy to the patient. Differences between how the care of patients in the independent sector is organised and the care of patients in the NHS is organised, should be explained clearly to patients who choose to be treated privately, or whose treatment is provided in the independent sector but funded by the NHS. This should include 219 Recommendations clarification of how consultants are engaged at the private hospital, including the use of practising privileges and indemnity, and the arrangements for emergency provision and intensive care. There should be a short period introduced into the process of patients giving consent for surgical procedures, to allow them time to reflect on their diagnosis and treatment options. We recommend that the GMC monitors this as part of ‘Good Medical Practice’ The CQC, as a matter of urgency, should assure itself that all hospital providers are complying effectively with up-to-date national guidance on MDT meetings, including in breast cancer care, and that patients are not at risk of harm due to non-compliance in this area. Information about the means to escalate a complaint to an independent body is communicated more effectively in both the NHS and independent sector. All private patients should have the right to mandatory independent resolution of their complaint. The University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust board should check that all patients of Paterson have been recalled, and to communicate with any who have not been seen. We recommend that Spire should check that all patients of Paterson have been recalled, and to communicate with any who have not been seen, and that they should check that they have been given an ongoing treatment plan in the same way that has been provided for patients in the NHS. A national framework or protocol, with guidance, is developed about how recall of patients should be managed and communicated. This framework or protocol should specify that the process is centred around the patient’s needs, provide advice on how recall decisions are made, and advise what resource is required and how this might be provided. This should apply to both the independent sector and the NHS. The Government should, as a matter of urgency, reform the current regulation of indemnity products for healthcare professionals, in light of the serious shortcomings identified by the Inquiry, and introduce a nationwide safety net to ensure patients are not disadvantaged. The Government should ensure that the current system of regulation and the collaboration of the regulators serves patient safety as the top priority, given the ineffectiveness of the system identified in this Inquiry. If, when a hospital investigates a healthcare professional’s behaviour, including the use of an HR process, any perceived risk to patient safety should result in the suspension of that healthcare professional. If the healthcare professional also works at another provider, any concerns about them should be communicated to that provider. The Government addresses, as a matter of urgency, this gap in responsibility and liability.
  11. News Article
    A culture of "avoidance and denial" allowed a breast surgeon to perform botched and unnecessary operations on hundreds of women, an independent inquiry has found. The independent inquiry into Ian Paterson's malpractice has recommended the recall of his 11,000 patients for their surgery to be assessed. Paterson is serving a 20-year jail term for 17 counts of wounding with intent. One of Paterson's colleagues has been referred to police and five more to health watchdogs by the inquiry. The disgraced breast surgeon worked with cancer patients at NHS and private hospitals in the West Midlands over 14 years. His unregulated "cleavage-sparing" mastectomies, in which breast tissue was left behind, meant the disease returned in many of his patients. Others had surgery they did not need - some even finding out years later they did not have cancer. Patients were let down by the healthcare system "at every level" said the inquiry chair, Bishop of Norwich the Rt Revd Graham James, who identified "multiple individual and organisational failures". One of the key recommendations from the report is that the Government should make patient safety a the top priority, given the ineffectiveness of the system identified in this Inquiry. Read full story Source: BBC News, 4 February 2020
  12. Community Post
    I’ve just been listening to the 10 o’clock news tonight and it has been covering the report into Paterson, the breast surgeon who may have needlessly operated on thousands on women. One of the recommendations is that patient safety should be a ‘top priority’ across the NHS (again!!). Another interesting recommendation is that the NHS (and private healthcare providers) need to be better at sharing information about medical staff. Currently, medical staff seem to be able to be investigated in one hospital, and then move to another without any of their history following them. Maybe we need some sort of central system, like Doctify for employers? What do you think?
×