Analysis: Red flags should’ve been waved over ‘nose blow’ doctor
There is no denying anyone can make a mistake and doctors are only human. But when a specialist racks up a list of serious complaints over years of practice then it’s time big red flags are waved, writes Jackie Sinnerton.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
There is no denying anyone can make a mistake and doctors are only human.
But when a specialist racks up a list of complaints ranging from shocking clinical practice to a disgusting hygiene breach and bizarre behaviour over years of practice then it’s definitely time big red flags are waved into the faces of Queensland patients.
Patients put their lives in the hands of their doctor and they deserve to know if they are in good hands.
It is the responsibility of Queensland Health to monitor the standard of care offered by their medics and take the appropriate action if standards are not met.
Urologist Dr Daryl Stephens became problematic for Mackay HHS not long after he started work at the Base hospital in 2016. He’s been suspended, investigated, reprimanded but never terminated.
The responsibility to keep patients informed on any problems with doctors lies with AHPRA, the nation’s regulating body.
But the only public posting on the AHPRA site in regards to Dr Daryl Stephens relates to a Western Australian Medical Board tribunal that found he engaged in professional misconduct in his treatment of a bladder cancer patient.
This weekend the Sunday Mail has told the story of a heartbroken Gympie woman whose husband was a patient of Dr Stephens. He too had bladder cancer.
An AHPRA investigation found that the doctor did not sufficiently test her husband who already had malignant cells in his urine.
Her husband died last year and she believes her beloved Dave would still be alive if it wasn’t for Dr Stephens’ clinical conduct.
AHPRA does not have this or any of Dr Stephen’s Mackay work record on their site.
AHPRA is bound by law as to what can be viewed by the public. That sounds like a law that needs to be revisited.