ACCforum: Another medical Stuffup - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Another medical Stuffup man left legally blind

#1 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 11 July 2008 - 01:31 PM

From today's "Stuff email Alerts"


Man left blind after lack of follow-up care
DHB and specialist ordered to apologise

The Southland Times | Friday, 11 July 2008
Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your Say
JOHN HAWKINS/Southland Times

BATTLERS: Invercargill couple Rose and Graham Moodie reflecting on a four-year battle for compensation and recognition of a series of failures by the health system that left Mr Moodie legally blind.
Related Links
SDHB apologises to man left legally blind
Subscribe to Archivestuff
Have your say

A former Southland Hospital ophthalmologist and the Southland District Health Board have been directed to apologise to an Invercargill man who was left legally blind after a lack of follow-up care.

In a report released today, Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson says former Southland Hospital eye surgeon Dr B, whom The Southland Times has identified as Brett Rogers, and the board both breached guidelines in the treatment of the patient.

Dr Rogers and the board breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights of Graham Moodie by failing to provide him with the appropriate standard of care, the report says.

Southland District Health Board interim chief executive Brian Rousseau said the board accepted the findings.

"We were in breach of our duty of care and failed this patient, who was lost to follow-up," Mr Rousseau said.

"Unfortunately the patient's outcome was not one that could be reversed but was preventable.

"We take responsibility for our part in this outcome and are extremely sorry." In an e-mail, Dr Rogers apologises and says Mr Moodie suffered visual damage after a secretarial error led to cancellation of his one-week follow-up.

He dismissed criticism of his notes and said Mr Moodie received the appropriate medical treatment for eye problems.

It was the hospital follow-up system that let both of the patient and himself down, he says.

"I am very disappointed and sorry that that happened," Dr Rogers says.

"Whilst I resigned from the public hospital about two years ago and now work only in private, I do hope that the hospital has put steps in place to improve the facilities and the service to ensure that such mistakes no longer happen." The Accident Compensation Corporation paid Mr Moodie $110,555.80 after it found he had 85 percent permanent impairment because of his loss of sight.

The report looks at the care provided by Dr Rogers and the board from November 2004 through to June 2006.

In his report, Mr Paterson says an investigation began in April 2007 but took more than a year because of complex issues and a series of unsuccessful legal challenges by Dr Rogers.

Mr Moodie was referred to Dr Rogers because of eye pain and vision problems, seeing him seven times during the 16 months from November 2004.

In May 2006 Mr Moodie went back to him with severely reduced vision.

Dr Rogers diagnosed glaucoma and arranged an appointment for the following week but it was cancelled, the report says.

Dr Rogers went on leave for about five weeks from May 19.

Mr Moodie did not receive any further care from the clinic until his vision deteriorated and his wife contacted the hospital six weeks later, the report says.

In June, Mr Moodie was seen by a locum who found he was almost blind and underwent urgent glaucoma drainage surgery on each eye, the report says.

Mr Paterson found Dr Rogers did not provide Mr Moodie with an appropriate standard of care by failing to regularly measure his eye pressure and document his findings.

"His documentation was poor. He has been quick to blame administrative staff and management for these inadequacies," the report says.

By not following up on Mr Moodie after the cancelled appointment and then going on leave, Dr Rogers owed a "duty of care" to Mr Moodie, whom he knew had "significant problems", it says.

Citing expert advice from another ophthalmologist, the report says Mr Moodie might have "retained useful vision" had he been seen between May 10 and June 21, 2006.

"Instead, (Mr Moodie) is now legally blind." Dr Rogers told the commission he found his work environment at Southland Hospital to be unacceptable and the ophthamology department was fraught with administration problems.

The health board was found to have breached the code by not having effective systems and processes to manage patient appointments.

However the commissioner found the board had taken all reasonable steps to ensure Dr Rogers was able to provide care of an appropriate standard and that it was not therefore vicariously liable for the doctor's breaches.


ACC pays $100k for sight bungle
By JARED MORGAN - The Southland Times | Friday, 11 July 2008
Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your Say
Related Links
Man left blind after lack of follow-up care
Subscribe to Archivestuff
Have your say

A man left legally blind after his doctor and Southland Hospital failed to provide follow-up care was awarded more than $100,000 in compensation.

However, Invercargill couple Graham and Rose Moodie said the compensation paid by the Accident Compensation Corporation provided little solace for a series of failures that had robbed Mr Moodie of his quality of life.

A Health and Disability Commissioner's report released today finds a former Southland Hospital ophthalmologist, whom The Southland Times has identified as Dr Brett Rogers, and the Southland District Health Board breached guidelines in the treatment of Mr Moodie.

The release means the Times is also able to publish details of the ACC decision on June 20 last year to pay compensation.

Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson recommended Dr Rogers and the Southland District Health Board apologise to the couple for breaches of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.

The couple received a hand-delivered letter of apology last month from Southland District Health Board interim deputy chief executive Lexie O'Shea, while a letter from Dr Rogers was forwarded to the couple this week from the commissioner's office.

The couple were comforted somewhat by the apologies but believed they lacked sincerity given the commissioner directed they be made.

"Basically it is not coming from the heart — it's because they they have to," Mr Moodie said.

ACC awarded Mr Moodie a lump sum of $110,555.80 after it found he had 85 percent permanent impairment due to his loss of sight. That was the first victory in what has been a four-year saga for the couple.

At the time Mr Moodie, then 57, was working at the Fernhill Limeworks in Central Southland.

"My eyes started playing up ... I could hardly see to drive to work," he said.

He was referred by his GP to the Southland Hospital ophthalmology clinic in November 2004 and was diagnosed with glaucoma by Dr Rogers on May 10, 2006. A followup appointment scheduled for May 17 was cancelled and no further appointment was made.

Meanwhile, his eyesight was getting worse, Mrs Moodie said.

His vision was narrowing and he was losing all peripheral sight.

After pleading with hospital staff on June 19, 2006, Mrs Moodie finally got an appointment for her husband two days later, she said.

A locum examined Mr Moodie and found him to be almost blind. He had surgery on both his eyes on June 23 to save the remainder of his vision. He is left with only 20 percent vision in each eye.

The couple were devastated and Mrs Moodie was prompted to research and see what they should do next.

"I'm Filipino, I don't really know what to do." Hours of research on the internet led her to the Health and Disability Commissioner. She laid a complaint on October 31, 2006.



And the Doctor's reply:
"
Doctor's letter of apology to man left legally blind
Autocar | Friday, 11 July 2008
Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your Say
Related Links
Man left blind after lack of follow-up care
SDHB apologises to man left legally blind
Subscribe to Archivestuff
Have your say

Dear Mr Moodie
I have received a copy of the HDC report regarding your eye care at Southland Hospital, as I understand
you have.


The HDC has identified several breaches both on my behalf and on behalf of Southland Health, some relating to the brevity of your medical records and others relating to your visual loss due to the lack of follow-up appointments that I had requested.


I am very sorry that as a result of a failed appointment which I had requested be provided for you, you suffered damage to your peripheral vision from progression of your glaucoma. It was not acceptable that Mrs Moodie had to ring to obtain a further appointment that had been cancelled in error. I would hope that in future urgent follow-up appointments will be made as directed and not cancelled.


Whilst I have personally chosen to no longer work at Southland Hospital and have since resigned, if I
were still working there I would try to ensure, as the specialist responsible for the patients care, that additional steps were taken to guarantee that urgent appointments such as yours, were not cancelled
without discussion with the specialist and that clinics were not overbooked so that more time was available for patient consultations and to better document clinical findings.


I sincerely trust that your eye condition is now stable, that you are receiving regular follow-up appointments and I wish you all the very best for the future.
Dr Brett Rogers
Invercargill
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10808
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 July 2008 - 04:26 PM

Another case of all care but no responsibility.

This is the primary reason why medical health professionals do not demonstrate the necessary diligence that they should. There simply isn't the sufficient threat of personal consequence. Usually the medical health professionals employer ends up being dominated by an accountant somewhere whereby they end up cutting corners.
0

#3 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 11 July 2008 - 05:11 PM

Is this one of the Eye Specialists who were forced to resign from Invercargill hospital cos they were committing fraud?
Didnt they overcharge the hospital system and also work in the Private system when under contract to work at the hospital?
My memory tells me there were 2 eye specialists involved here, Was this guy one of them?
0

#4 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 11 July 2008 - 07:39 PM

View PostSparrow, on Jul 11 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

Is this one of the Eye Specialists who were forced to resign from Invercargill hospital cos they were committing fraud?
Didnt they overcharge the hospital system and also work in the Private system when under contract to work at the hospital?
My memory tells me there were 2 eye specialists involved here, Was this guy one of them?

Sparrow,
Good spotting, early bird does catch the Worm LOL.

I Googled and here's what I got:

"Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand to pay $100,000 for breaching Commerce Act

Release No. 146. Issued 30 Jun 2004

Issued 30 June 2004

The High Court has fined the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand Inc $100,000 and two ophthalmologists a total of $30,000 for contravening the anti-competitive provisions of the Commerce Act.

In the Wellington High Court, Justice Gendall ordered the Ophthalmological Society to pay $100,000, Dr Brett Rogers to pay $25,000 and Dr Mark Elder to pay $5,000. Justice Gendall also ordered that they, and the other ophthalmologists involved in the case, pay $467,870 towards the Commission’s legal costs.

In setting the penalties, Justice Gendall emphasised that they were specifically designed to meet the circumstances of this case and could not be taken as a guide by other professionals or their associations as to what might be the penalties imposed in future. “Indeed they are likely to be many times greater.”

Commerce Commission Chair Paula Rebstock said it was difficult to imagine a clearer case of deliberate anti-competitive conduct and the Court’s decision ought to send a clear message that a disregard for the principles of the Commerce Act by a professional body will not be tolerated.

“The medical profession, like any other, is subject to the anti-competitive prohibitions of the Commerce Act. They can’t avoid the law by raising spurious claims of risks to clinical safety,” she said.

“The Courts found that the defendants in this case acted deliberately to thwart entry by Australian ophthalmologists from carrying out routine cataract surgery in Southland in 1997. The society used its collective power to prevent this entry in order to financially advantage one of its own members – Dr Brett Rogers.”

Ms Rebstock said that it was disappointing that after 18 years of the Commerce Act being in force, that a major medical professional body did not seem to be aware that it is subject to the Commerce Act.

“What the ophthalmologists did in this case was to use their power to exclude competition and protect one of their own, without any regard to the public good at all.

“This was an abuse of the trust and privilege allowed to this profession, and it is particularly repugnant that the defendants used the language of patient safety as a convenient excuse to disguise their own self interest,” said Ms Rebstock.

“The defendants’ conduct had an actual and real impact on the burden suffered by a vulnerable group of consumers – those men and women who were forced to wait for their cataract surgery simply because the surgeon wanted to protect his financial position,” she said.

Background

The Commerce Commission took action against the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand and five individual ophthalmologists over their alleged anti-competitive collusion which led to the cancellation of cataract operations to be performed in Invercargill by Australian ophthalmologists.

The Commission alleged the Society and the ophthalmologists contravened section 27 of the Commerce Act dealing with anti-competitive arrangements which have the purpose of, and/or effect of, substantially lessening competition in a market.

The cancelled operations were to have started in January 1997 as part of arrangements between the Southern Health CHE and an Australian ophthalmologist.

Late in 1996, Southern Health received extra funding from the government Waiting Times Fund for an additional 225 cataract operations to be performed. It sought to have Australian ophthalmologists perform the operations.

The Commission alleged that the Society and the New Zealand ophthalmologists involved colluded to ensure that the Australian ophthalmologists did not carry out the additional operations.

Section 27 of the Act prohibits contracts arrangements or understandings that substantially lessen competition.

The relevant maximum penalties at the time of the contravention were $5 million against an organisation and up to $500,000 against an individual. The maximum penalties under the Commerce Act have since been increased in respect of organisations."
0

#5 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 11 July 2008 - 10:40 PM

View PostMedwyn, on Jul 11 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

Sparrow,
Good spotting, early bird does catch the Worm LOL.

I Googled and here's what I got:

"Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand to pay $100,000 for breaching Commerce Act

Release No. 146. Issued 30 Jun 2004

Issued 30 June 2004

The High Court has fined the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand Inc $100,000 and two ophthalmologists a total of $30,000 for contravening the anti-competitive provisions of the Commerce Act.

In the Wellington High Court, Justice Gendall ordered the Ophthalmological Society to pay $100,000, Dr Brett Rogers to pay $25,000 and Dr Mark Elder to pay $5,000. Justice Gendall also ordered that they, and the other ophthalmologists involved in the case, pay $467,870 towards the Commission’s legal costs.

In setting the penalties, Justice Gendall emphasised that they were specifically designed to meet the circumstances of this case and could not be taken as a guide by other professionals or their associations as to what might be the penalties imposed in future. “Indeed they are likely to be many times greater.”

Commerce Commission Chair Paula Rebstock said it was difficult to imagine a clearer case of deliberate anti-competitive conduct and the Court’s decision ought to send a clear message that a disregard for the principles of the Commerce Act by a professional body will not be tolerated.

“The medical profession, like any other, is subject to the anti-competitive prohibitions of the Commerce Act. They can’t avoid the law by raising spurious claims of risks to clinical safety,” she said.

“The Courts found that the defendants in this case acted deliberately to thwart entry by Australian ophthalmologists from carrying out routine cataract surgery in Southland in 1997. The society used its collective power to prevent this entry in order to financially advantage one of its own members – Dr Brett Rogers.”

Ms Rebstock said that it was disappointing that after 18 years of the Commerce Act being in force, that a major medical professional body did not seem to be aware that it is subject to the Commerce Act.

“What the ophthalmologists did in this case was to use their power to exclude competition and protect one of their own, without any regard to the public good at all.

“This was an abuse of the trust and privilege allowed to this profession, and it is particularly repugnant that the defendants used the language of patient safety as a convenient excuse to disguise their own self interest,” said Ms Rebstock.

“The defendants’ conduct had an actual and real impact on the burden suffered by a vulnerable group of consumers – those men and women who were forced to wait for their cataract surgery simply because the surgeon wanted to protect his financial position,” she said.

Background

The Commerce Commission took action against the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand and five individual ophthalmologists over their alleged anti-competitive collusion which led to the cancellation of cataract operations to be performed in Invercargill by Australian ophthalmologists.

The Commission alleged the Society and the ophthalmologists contravened section 27 of the Commerce Act dealing with anti-competitive arrangements which have the purpose of, and/or effect of, substantially lessening competition in a market.

The cancelled operations were to have started in January 1997 as part of arrangements between the Southern Health CHE and an Australian ophthalmologist.

Late in 1996, Southern Health received extra funding from the government Waiting Times Fund for an additional 225 cataract operations to be performed. It sought to have Australian ophthalmologists perform the operations.

The Commission alleged that the Society and the New Zealand ophthalmologists involved colluded to ensure that the Australian ophthalmologists did not carry out the additional operations.

Section 27 of the Act prohibits contracts arrangements or understandings that substantially lessen competition.

The relevant maximum penalties at the time of the contravention were $5 million against an organisation and up to $500,000 against an individual. The maximum penalties under the Commerce Act have since been increased in respect of organisations."


And yet another one via Googling:

Southland DHB head welcomes censure of eye doctor
By NZPA
156 views

SOUTHLAND

The head of the Southland District Health Board (SDHB) has welcomed a report censuring a doctor for charging an elderly patient for services that should have been free.

Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson found ophthalmologist Brett Rogers performed cataract surgery on an 82-year-old woman under the public system, but charged for follow-up appointments as private care.

It was done without the woman having made an informed choice, so was unethical, Mr Paterson said in a ruling released today.

He found "with some slight misgivings", that the SDHB reasonably relied on the doctor to make proper disclosures and was not directly liable for his failure to do so.

Dr Rogers' lawyer claimed an undated letter indicated that the health board had condoned the arrangement of charging public patients directly for pre-operative and post-operative appointments, but Mr Paterson said he did not accept that.

SDHB chief executive Nigel Murray said tonight the board supported the findings and that it was difficult in the absence of a complaint for the board to know if private patients, who have requested to be placed on the public operative list, were still being charged by the doctor.

Such transactions usually took place in private rooms without the knowledge of the board, he said.

Dr Murray said the public and private mix was based largely on co-operation and trust between the SDHB and consultants, who also have private practices.

"It is always regretful when the actions of a few bring such practices into question," Dr Murray said.

The commissioner said Dr Rogers should reimburse the woman the money she was charged for her appointments.

The board took disciplinary action in November 1997 against Dr Rogers in relation to the charging of public cataract patients seen by him under a "waiting times fund" contract -- regarded as a serious breach of trust.

In 2004 the High Court in Wellington fined the Opthalmological Society and five doctors, including Dr Rogers, for anti-competition measures involving using their market power to block Australian counterparts from carrying out cataract surgery in Southland.

Dr Rogers has now altered his practice and no longer sees public patients for postoperative follow up in private.

Mr Paterson also recommended he apologise to the patient."
0

#6

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 July 2008 - 11:47 AM

The above charges, and a man is blind, yet this doctor continues and has a private practice-how sad! What a cop out blaming "administration".
Must say congratulations to the Moodie's for finally getting some compensation.
0

#7 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 July 2014 - 02:30 PM

New health boss arrives under a cloud
AMANDA PARKINSON
Last updated 05:00 17/07/2014

http://www.stuff.co....s-under-a-cloud

The new boss of the Waikato District Health Board has welcomed a report that criticised his leadership of a Canadian health authority.

New Zealander Dr Nigel Murray
will officially start as Waikato DHB's chief executive officer on Monday.

He said the review of his previous role as head of Fraser Health, in the Vancouver area, reiterated the need for transparency in large health organisations. "We must always be open to advice and criticism, and that transparency needs to be transferred to staff and patients," he said.

The report indicated staff were overworked and frustrated with a "top-down" leadership style.

"Budgeting is a top-down process with managers having no input into budget decisions," the report said
.

However, Murray said his approach to budgeting in the Waikato would ensure all levels of staff were included in the processes.

"My approach is that everyone has to be involved in budgeting. As a physician myself I can't highlight how much I want to see clinical staff involved in leadership and budgeting decisions."

He said effective and appropriate patient care needed many people's input and he wanted to invest in patient care.

"I don't want one dollar wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy, but as many of those dollars spent on the patient care at the front line."

The review showed several hospitals under Fraser Health Authority's jurisdiction were rated the worst in Canada on various measures of patient safety and quality of care.

The report said Fraser Health had patient occupancy rates above 100 per cent, from 2008-2013, resulting in many patients lying on beds in hallways.

Only 55 per cent of emergency patients were admitted to hospital in less than 10 hours, making the authority's ability to deal with acute-care patients the worst in Canada. The report also criticised the way the health authority's board had dealt with crisis.

"The [British Columbia] ministry [of health] has had to intervene several times to resolve crisis at Fraser Health. The perception is that these situations would not have been resolved had the ministry not stepped in," the report said.

Canadian media reported the British Columbia health ministry would give Fraser an extra $60 million in funding as a result of the review's findings.

Murray resigned from his position as CEO of Fraser Health Authority before the review was made public, but said the findings had nothing to do with his decision to step down.
Ad Feedback

"My decision to move on to a new job was based on my desire to have a career step that was linked to my heritage, and any CEO who has been in a job for nearly eight years starts to think about other career opportunities."

Waikato DHB chairman Bob Simcock said he was confident Murray would be a "competent" leader of the organisation.

"We hired him based on references from people he has worked alongside and I am confident he will live up to those references," he said.

[email protected]

- Waikato Times
0

#8 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 July 2014 - 02:33 PM

Questions over new Waikato DHB head's past
11:45 AM Tuesday Jul 15, 2014

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11293771

The incoming chief executive of Waikato District Health Board was in charge of one of the worst-performing Canadian health authorities, a Canadian government-ordered review shows.

New Zealander Nigel Murray, who will take up his new role at Waikato DHB next week, was head of the Fraser Health Authority in British Columbia until earlier this year.

He quit the role to return to New Zealand shortly before the review was due to be released. It was announced he was being appointed CEO of Waikato DHB last month.


Nigel Murray. Photo / Richard Robinson

In the now released report, several Fraser Health Authority hospitals were found to have some of the worst results in Canada on various measures of patient safety and quality of care.

It was the only authority in British Columbia which failed to come within budget for three years in a row despite receiving budget increases for each of those years.

Labour's health spokeswoman Annette King branded the report "damning".

"Labour urged the DHB to hold off confirming Dr Murray's Waikato appointment until this latest report had been released. It declined," she said.

"I also sought information from the Ministry of Health and from Health Minister Tony Ryall as to the process around the appointment, but was given the brush-off.

"Nigel Murray will be responsible for one of New Zealand's biggest public hospitals plus an annual budget of over $1 billion, and Waikato DHB is not without its own shortcomings. A recent report noted there were too many managers, poor communication between departments, and too-slow treatment of patients. The board is aware of Dr Murray's track record. It will now be accountable for any decisions he makes in the future," Ms King said.

She said Dr Murray was "not new to controversy", highlighting a lengthy dispute over collective agreement negotiations with doctors in 2006-2007 when he was heading Southland DHB.


When his appointment was announced last month the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists called on the DHB to "put the brakes" on hiring him, saying it was "rushing headlong into hiring someone who has a polarising leadership style that has been experienced in both New Zealand and Canada".

Waikato DHB today reiterated its earlier support for Dr Murray, saying it was certain he was the best person for the job.

"All of the people we have spoken to in Auckland, Southland, and Canada have told us that Dr Murray is a high-performing chief executive and an outstanding leader," board chairman Bob Simcock said.

"As a board we want to use our limited resources to care for our community. We are convinced that Dr Murray can help us do that."

- APNZ
0

#9 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 July 2014 - 02:39 PM

The usual reasons given, "family reasons" yeah right, time we had a new Tui Billboard.

CEO of Fraser Health quits $444,000-a-year job

Dr. Nigel Murray is returning to New Zealand, board announces

By Erin Ellis and Rob Shaw, Vancouver Sun June 7, 2014

http://www.vancouver...5856/story.html

METRO VANCOUVER -- The head of the Fraser Health Authority has resigned, weeks before a government-ordered review is due to be released.

The health authority’s board of directors announced Friday that CEO Dr. Nigel Murray is returning to his birthplace, New Zealand, for family reasons and for a new job.

No severance will be paid to Murray because he is quitting, the announcement said.

Murray was the highest-paid health authority CEO in B.C. at $444,000 in total annual compensation, but his replacement will be asked to take far less at $348,000, said Wynne Powell, interim chairman of the board for Fraser Health.

“Dr. Murray disclosed to the board a while ago that he didn’t feel that he was going to be remaining in Canada in the long-term and at the same time, a position virtually in his hometown happened to come open. ... When the board discussed it, we thought it wasn’t going to be helpful to us to have a CEO who was maybe going to exit in a year or two. Because of our long-term needs, we need as much consistency at the top as possible.”

While observers may wonder at the timing, Powell conceded, Murray is not going to become a scapegoat for the forthcoming government review.

“Leadership will always be questioned, but it’s not the base issue. It’s a combination of issues,” said Powell.

Dr. David Ostrow, former CEO of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, is coming out of retirement to be the interim head of Fraser Health beginning next week.

A review of Fraser Health’s operations should be complete by the end of June, the Health Ministry said Friday. The original deadline was the end of May, but Health Minister Terry Lake told the legislature last month he had extended the timeline after the government replaced Fraser Health’s board chairman David Mitchell with Powell. Powell recently retired as president and CEO of London Drugs and took on his new duties in April.

“We don’t want to shortchange the process,” Lake said during his budget estimates in late May. “With the change in leadership, that does throw a bit of a wrench into the timeline, but we think that we can accommodate that within a month or so.”

The review will include a strategic and operational plan for Fraser Health until 2017, and charts a course for the health authority to meet its targets and financial objectives, Lake said.

Fraser Health serves a population of 1.7 million — the fastest growing in the province — from Burnaby, Surrey and Delta up the Fraser Valley to Hope. Its budget in the 2013-14 fiscal year which ended in March was $3.1 billion, the highest of any B.C. health authority.

Lake ordered a review last October after the health authority was criticized for a number of issues:

• Fraser Health failed to meet its budget three years in a row despite six per cent budget increases in each of those years. Other health authorities received an average 4.8 per cent annual budget increase.

• Continued hospital congestion leading to patients being treated in hallways.

• In October 2013, Murray apologized to a 90-year-old woman who was sent home from Delta Hospital at 2 a.m. in pyjamas and without shoes. Vivian Fitzpatrick was discharged from Delta Hospital and sent home by cab, bleeding from a medical procedure and wrapped in a bed sheet.

• Recurring difficulties with so-called super-bugs and hospital acquired infections such as C. difficile and other antibiotic resistant bacteria including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.

With Vancouver Sun files
© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun
0

#10 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 July 2014 - 02:41 PM

Dr Nigel Murray - Canada information

https://www.google.c...s=ctr:countryCA
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users