Medical Practitioner, Dr E New Zealand Men's Clinic - Health and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Health and Disability Commissioner Appendix 1 Issues notified for investigation Mr A • The appropriateness of care and the adequacy of information provided to Mr A by Dr E and New Zealand Men’s Clinic Ltd. Mr B • The appropriateness of care provided to Mr B by Dr E, including the adequacy of the clinical assessment and the adequacy of the information provided. • The appropriateness of care and adequacy of information provided to Mr B by New Zealand Men’s Clinic Ltd in February 2008. Mr C • The appropriateness of care provided to Mr C by Dr E, including the adequacy of the clinical assessment and the adequacy of the information provided. • The appropriateness of care and adequacy of information provided to Mr C by New Zealand Men’s Clinic Ltd in April 2008. Mr D • The appropriateness of care provided to Mr D by Dr E, including the adequacy of the clinical assessment and the adequacy of the information provided. • The appropriateness of care and adequacy of information provided to Mr D by New Zealand Men’s Clinic Ltd, in particular whether he was provided with an assessment of the costs of the services. 18 December 2008 22 Names have been removed (except the NZ Men’s Clinic) to protect privacy. Identifying letters are assigned in alphabetical order and bear no relationship to the person’s actual name.
Opinion 08HDC02899, 08HDC05986, 08HDC07100, 08HDC09984 Appendix 2 Expert advice from Dr Stuart Tiller: Mr A “Thank you for the request that I provide clinical advice in relation to specific questions posed regarding the care provided by [Dr E] to [Mr A] at the New Zealand Men’s Clinic. Advice requested. • General advice on the standard of care provided. • Specific advice on the standard of the clinical assessment/examination performed. • Specific advice on the clinical treatment prescribed and/or dispensed. • Whether any professional standards apply, and whether these standards were complied with. • Any other comment. The complaint. [Mr A] has complained that his consultation with [Dr E] was brief and the injectable medication for erectile dysfunction provided was ineffective despite great cost. The provider response — [Dr E]. [Dr E stated:] ‘[Mr A] is a man who suffers from diabetes and had reported significant erectile dysfunction problems. With his medical history the most successful treatment for him is intracavernosal injection treatment. When I met him on 25 January 2008 I advised him that this treatment was the only option really available to him, other than doing nothing or continuing with the oral medications which have been inconsistent in the past. I explained to [Mr A] that if he was to proceed with the treatment then a test dose of the injectable treatment proposed would be required to be administered. He was provided with documentation including the consent form which warns of risks. After administering the test dose [Mr A] reported a satisfactory outcome. I have noted his result as a 60–70% response. 18 December 2008 23 Names have been removed (except the NZ Men’s Clinic) to protect privacy. Identifying letters are assigned in alphabetical order and bear no relationship to the person’s actual name.
Page 1: Medical Practitioner, Dr E New Zeal
Page 4 and 5: Health and Disability Commissioner
Page 44: Health and Disability Commissioner

Medical Practitioner, Dr E New Zealand Men's Clinic - Health and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?