Kevin, M.D. - Medical Weblog

Here's a local article about him. Seems his colleagues gave him glowing recommendations. Sheesh.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_052605_news_australian_doctor.2b0d89912.html
 

I'm sure somebody liked the guy. Somebody thought he was a good doctor. Anybody can find a couple of people to write a supportive recommendation in any line of work.

The fact of the matter remains, the AUSTRALIANS dropped the ball. They failed to check the two most important sources for information.

They failed to check with the medical staff office of the hospital where he worked. They failed to check the state boards where he held licensure - Oregon and New York.

They let the guy pick a few friends to write letters on his behalf. Heck, Dr. Kevorkian could find someone to write a nice letter for him.

If the Australians had checked with his hospital they would have found his surgical privileges were severely curtailed. If the Australians had checked with the State Medical Boards, they would have found verification of the same in both states.

From all reports, when the doc practiced under those limitations, he was safe.

Here's the story behind the recommendations:

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/international-0/1117116538283081.xml&storylist=orlocal
 

Ahh--but don't all you doctors babble endlessly about the virtues of self-policing. Professions cannot govern themselves; there's too muchg backscratching and protectionism.

Long live malpractice!
 

Speaking of babbling, listen very carefully.

Australia. dropped. the. ball.

The US state authorities kept their corner of the world clean.
 

If he was still operating, even under limited circumstances, they didn't keep it that clean. Hell, he went from NY to Oregon and was still seeing patients.

I bet he even had malpractice insurance. But it's the injured patients' fault that premiums are high.
 

As an employee of Kaiser Permanente, he would have been insured through Kaiser (self-insured), not individually insured.

Since the incidents stopped when they (Kaiser and the State Medical Board) limited his practice, I would say they did a pretty fair job cleaning up that mess.
 

Yet the public has no clue about this particular physician. And were he to *gasp* ignore the State Board, you'd give the unfortunate patient the same tort reform screwing over you'd give the patient of a doctor with no claims. Besides, how can you be so sure the incidents stopped? How does a physician like that even find a job in a hospital?

Do you wonder how a physician like that in your insurance pool affects your rates? Do you ever question why he even should be in the same pool?

Or do you just happily blame lawyers and screw over patients and move on down the road, blissfully unaware of such things?
 

I don't screw anybody over, I leave that to the lawyers.

Anyone interested in knowing about the doctor in question can go to the state medical board, where the doctor's disciplinary record is plainly available.

That particular state just notes that the disciplinary order is in place, you have to pay some small fee to get the report. Other states put the orders right on the Web site.

Nevertheless, to say that the public has no clue is just another one of your lies.

I know the incidents stopped. The news accounts concede that. The state Board has said that. Kaiser has said that.

The stuff that he did badly he couldn't do any more. Most of the stuff he could do, he had to get mandatory second opinions.

Kaiser Permanente self-insures, by the way. I'm not in any "pool" with them.

How does a physician like that find a job in a hospital? He was already AT Kaiser. He didn't need to get another job, he already had one. Kaiser was left with the choice to get rid of the doc completely or sharply limit his practice. They chose the latter. Whether that's a good choice, I can't say, but they did NOT ignore the problem.

With the presence of an official Board sanction on his record with the state board and the National Practitioner Data Bank, the chance of him getting a job as a surgeon anywhere in the country, or of going out on his own and getting surgical privileges anywhere in the country, are about zero.

The best evidence for that is his leaving the country to find a job with full surgical privileges. The only way any hospital in the USA would have given him surgical privileges with that sanction on his record, is if the hospital simply failed to do the routine checks.

Which is what happened in Australia.
 

"I don't screw anybody over, I leave that to the lawyers."

Don't kid yourself, tort reformer. You cap supporters do a fine job of screwing over anyone who doesn't have a job and has the misfortune of getting injured by medical malpractice.

It's "plainly available"? With a small fee of course. And you have to call the state medical board, fill out a form, and we'll have it to you in 6-8 weeks?

By the way, in your pool, how many physicians are there with multiple payouts? Any idea?
 

It's a lot more easily available than the disciplinary reports from the state Bar.

The small fee is about ten bucks in my state, which is less than most lawyers charge their clients when the secretary licks a stamp.
 

Ahh, back to hating lawyers again. That's probably the dumbest thing about this whole deal - that you think you're hurting lawyers with this stuff.

It may even be dumber than the belief your rates are going to go down for any meaningful length of time, if at all.
 

You're good at twisting things and changing the subject. You must be a great lawyer.

I repeat:

>> It's [physician disciplinary information] a lot more easily available than the disciplinary reports from the state Bar.

>>The small fee is about ten bucks in my state, which is less than most lawyers charge their clients when the secretary licks a stamp.

Use this same Dr. Patel's Oregon state Medical Board, and compare it to the state Bar.

The medical board notes any official sanctions in place, for details you do have to contact them. Also has a listing of disciplinary actions chronologically, you can look up either way. But, most importantly, if you had a question about Dr. Patel, you could look up his name and there's a big red flag right there on the state board's page. That might stop me right there, and either find a new surgeon or take the time to postpone surgery and find out why the guy has this red flag.

Go the the same state's Bar website. Go to the page to look up an individual member. No place on the member's listing to even make mention of any complaint.

That state Bar lists a disciplinary reporter by year. They make it real easy to know if your lawyer has been disciplined.

Do an experiment to doublecheck. Go to the disciplinary reporter for any year. Find a couple of the worst offenders you can find. There's so many to choose from, I know. Take that lawyer's name, go back to that person's listing, see if there's any mention of the sanction in the member's listing.

None.

You will find similar results in most states you choose, though mileage may vary....

Ohio's medical board, a state I'm more familiar with, lists disciplinary actions and the details, on the web site. Any interested reader, do the same experiment with your own state, and contrast it with your own state Bar's website (or supreme court, or wherever lawyers are listed in your state's system, it varies).

The fact remains, though you choose to ignore and twist it (good work) that the Medical Board does a damn sight better job of policing its members than the Bar does. It also does a better job of letting the public know about disciplined physicians. It's not even close.
 

Weird, because in my state, one has to send a written request to get a physician's disciplinary report, which doesn't have any detail about the sanction. Yet to see the list of disciplined attorneys you can simply call and they'll fax it to you OR you can read it online for free. And, you'll know exactly what they were sanctioned for, what Rules of Professional Conduct were violated, and how long the sanction lasts.

What's more, it appears that we get rid of our bad apples much quicker. I believe you can find the Medical Board rankings at Publiccitizen.org. You might want to check out where your state stacks up and find out who is responsible for your high insurance rates.

Perhaps neither of us should be generalizing so freely?
 

http://www.news-mail.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3637486&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=


From The Bundaberg and Region News-Mail:
No checks on surgeon: Leck admits to inquiry

27.05.2005

THE manager of Bundaberg Base Hospital has told an inquiry he never checked Dr Jayant Patel’s qualifications and allowed him to flee the country only a day after he resigned in disgrace.
Bundaberg district health manager Peter Leck, who has stood aside from his position, came under heavy questioning at the Morris inquiry yesterday.
He admitted he never checked whether the doctor was registered to work as a surgeon in Australia.
Mr Leck said he was unaware the Indian-trained doctor was not qualified to practise as a surgeon in Australia.
Mr Leck said he did not and could not remember looking at documents relating to Dr Patel’s clearance to work as a surgeon.
“My understanding is he was endorsed by the medical board to practise as a surgeon,’’ he said.
Mr Morris replied: “You’re just far too busy are you to trouble yourself with whether or not that people being held out as surgeons at your hospital are actually qualified?’’
“Well it’s not my role,’’ Mr Leck said, apportioning the responsibility to the director of medical services Dr Darren Keating.
Mr Leck admitted he did look at the Dr Patel’s contract and signed the approval on the basis “that was what was normal’’.
“Obviously in hindsight that’s not something that I would have chosen to do now, but at the time I didn’t see it as significant,’’ he said.
A critical Mr Morris responded: “Despite the fact there was controversy going on, the man was being called Dr Death in the media, you just didn’t think it was important to make sure you got it right?’’
Mr Leck also told the court an investigation into the allegations of Dr Patel’s incompetence did not begin until February this year, despite being aware of concerns surrounding the surgeon since last October.
Dr Peter Miach, the hospital’s director of medicine, told the inquiry he continually hit a bureaucratic brick wall when expressing concerns about Dr Patel, at one point being told by Dr Keating that the hospital was a “business’’.
Dr Keating, who offered Dr Patel another four years employment at the hospital despite the concerns, told the hearing he was concerned about the claims but also about the surgeon leaving.
The hearing continues.