The background
The case relates to the performance and conduct of a practitioner who carried out cosmetic surgery, principally breast augmentation surgery, on 12 patients. The matter also concerns the practitioner’s convictions for carrying out surgery on nine patients in an unlicensed health facility in circumstances where he was the director of the company that carried on the business and knowingly authorised/permitted the contravention of the Private Health Facilities Act 2007 (NSW) (Act).
The practitioner’s contention that the surgery he was conducting was ‘restorative’ and not cosmetic and therefore, the Act didn’t apply, was rejected in the criminal proceedings. He was ultimately fined $255,000.
The Tribunal found that the practitioner had, among other things:
- failed to conduct appropriate pre-operative assessments of patients, including failing to see patients at all prior to performing the surgery;
- failed to obtain proper informed consent from patients, including by not affording patients an opportunity to discuss potential complications and delegating much of the consent process to his staff;
- inappropriately sat sedated patients up during surgery to comment on or consent to a breast implant, which exposed them to unacceptable risks including infection;
- failed to provide adequate post-operative care for his patients, including discharging patients shortly after surgery without any observations and who were in significant pain;
- invited friends and relatives of patients to come into the operating room to obtain their opinion about a patient’s breast implants;
- failed to keep appropriate records; and
- in one instance, conducted a labiaplasty at the same time as breast augmentation.
The practitioner was also found to have formulated wholly inadequate surgical plans in respect of some of the patients.
During the course of one breast augmentation surgery, the practitioner contacted the patient’s husband via FaceTime during surgery to ask his opinion about an implant.
The Tribunal considered that although the practitioner did not intend to practice again, that was an irrelevant consideration to its decision to cancel the practitioner’s registration and impose a period of seven years disqualification to ensure the public is protected from him or other practitioners engaging in similar conduct.
The outcome
The Tribunal:
- found the practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct;
- cancelled the practitioner’s registration;
- disqualified the practitioner from applying for registration for a period of seven years; and
- ordered the practitioner to pay the HCCC’s costs
Implications
The case concerns inappropriate clinical management of patients from their initial consultation right through to post-operative care. It revealed significant and concerning deficiencies across the practitioner’s surgical practice and had an impact on ‘the women the subject of the complaint that cannot be overstated’.
To read the full decision, click here.
