Inquest into the death of Rosemarie Campbell (Link to Coroners Court Queensland)
This inquest focused on a death due to complications following gastric bypass surgery. No formal recommendations were made, for the reasons explained at [218].
…improvements as to the Wesley Hospital’s discharge criteria, vital signs procedure, clinical pathway, nurse training, and patient information about recovery from bariatric surgery, have been made since Ms Campbell’s death. The discharge criteria were undergoing further review at the time of the hearing. These improvements are appropriate and in those circumstances, no formal recommendations are warranted.
As for whether Ms Campbell was a suitable candidate for the surgery itself, the Coroner said at [203]:
Whilst strong criticisms can be made of the advice about the appropriateness of the surgery that was ultimately provided to her and the adequacy of the information that she was given prior to making her decision to proceed with the surgery, it cannot be concluded that the surgery was necessarily inappropriate of itself, it cannot be said that those inadequacies were themselves the cause of Mrs Campbell’s death. It is a concern enough in itself though that, even if the surgery was appropriate, it is likely that the work up of the patient through alternatives to surgery was inadequate and the advice given to her was likely not properly balanced.
The findings are of interest for the attention to the early withdrawal of superannuation to fund the surgery. The Coroner commented that the surgeon’s credibility was seriously undermined by the “To whom it may concern” letter that he wrote on 14 February 2022, in aid of supporting Ms Campbell’s early access to superannuation to fund the surgery he had offered her. The letter was intended to be relied upon by those responsible for the supervision of superannuation savings i.e. the Australian Taxation Office. Its contents were, in most material respects, untrue. ([53] – [54]). At [62] the Coroner commented:
The letter was said to be based on a pro forma version designed to allow early access to superannuation. It is plain that he intended for Ms Campbell’s application to be successful, and it follows that he wrote a letter that contained false statements for that purpose. His explanation for doing that, when surely he must have known that he ought not, was that it was his patient’s choice. That of course is no excuse at all.
However as noted above, no formal recommendations were made in relation to the surgeon’s letter seeking early release of superannuation monies.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2539]