Summary
Mrs C complained about the cataract surgery she underwent at Gartnavel General Hospital. Mrs C received cataract surgery from a trainee ophthalmologist, under the supervision of a consultant ophthalmologist. She said that her eye was painful after the operation, and appeared smaller than the other eye. Mrs C subsequently attended her optometrist, and the consultant ophthalmologist for a follow-up some weeks later. She received an ultrasound and subsequently received a further examination from a second consultant ophthalmologist.
Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the surgery. She also said she felt the operation was performed by a doctor with insufficient experience. The board said the cataract surgery had been performed appropriately. They considered Mrs C had an abrasion that had resolved, and that the drooping appearance of Mrs C's eye was due to the lid speculum (the instrument that allowed the surgeons to hold her eye open). They said both consultant ophthalmologists found no evidence of significant complications.
We took independent advice from a consultant ophthalmologist. We found the evidence suggested the board provided appropriate cataract surgery. We considered the board's explanations of the problems Mrs C had encountered after surgery were reasonable and accurate, and did not evidence any failings on the part of the board. We also found the surgical trainee had an appropriate level of experience to perform the operation. While we did not uphold Mrs C's complaints, we made a recommendation relating to informing patients that operations may be performed by a trainee.
Recommendations
We recommended that the board: consider changes to their standard consent form to note that operations may be performed by a trainee.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201600051 as a PDF (12.37 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018