Roman Hasil and the Whanganui DHB - Health and Disability ...

Health and Disability Commissioner
into trouble. And my concern was always to what extent, as a supervisor, is one
responsible for the outcome of the person that you’re supervising.”
The Medical Council sent Dr B an email regarding his concerns about Dr Hasil. They
asked for the concerns to be put in writing so they could take action. Dr B did not put
his concerns in writing to the Medical Council.
However, a few months later, Dr B notified the DHB of his concerns about Dr Hasil’s
competence. On 26 January 2007, Dr B advised the newly appointed Clinical Director of
Surgical and Support Services, Dr D, that he had taken over management of a number of
patients who had been seen at Dr Hasil’s gynaecology clinics and recommended for
surgery. Dr B reviewed 20 of Dr Hasil’s patients. As a result of the review, Dr B
expressed concern that in about half of the patients reviewed, his views on management
differed at times quite significantly from that advised by Dr Hasil. Dr B said that there
had been similar incidents in the past when Dr A had intervened. Dr B also discussed the
management with two or three colleagues from other centres.
On 16 February 2007, Dr D responded. Dr B was advised that as part of the stringent
conditions placed on Dr Hasil’s ability to work in Wanganui, he had to discuss his cases
with Dr A. This was part of a system that was put in place for monitoring Dr Hasil’s
work and clinical performance. Dr D said he would forward Dr B’s communications on
the cases to Dr A for his perusal and comment. Dr D also advised that as a matter of
natural justice Dr Hasil needed to be informed of the concerns. Furthermore, the
approach to the concerns would be determined after discussions between Dr C, Manager
C, Dr A and himself.
Dr B said Dr D informed him that there were already concerns when Dr A was Head of
Department. Other events took over and nothing came of Dr B’s concerns. Dr B’s
impression was that Dr A was aware of his concerns but he didn’t give them the same
weight as Dr B had.
Dr A recalls that he was involved in the review of some of Dr Hasil’s clinical records and
that Dr B would have dealt with eight cases differently. Dr A said there was one case
where the proposed treatment was not appropriate, but they had already discussed the
woman’s care and she had been taken off the operating list; Dr A was to perform a
different procedure at some later stage. Dr A had since left and the case was then
reviewed by Dr B. Dr A said that just because Dr B would have managed the patients
differently, it did not mean that Dr Hasil’s management plan was necessarily wrong.
Dr B later explained that when the Medical Council asked him if he was prepared to put
something in writing in November, he did not because he considered that he did not have
any hard facts on which to base his opinion. However, after looking at 20 or more cases,
he felt he was able to form an opinion. Dr B notified the DHB about his concerns in late
November 2006. He said that he did not consider notifying the Medical Council about
those concerns because it became apparent that Dr Hasil was not going to return to
work.
42 February 2008