An obstetrician and gynaecologist has been found guilty of allegations of poor professional performance on two counts at a Medical Council inquiry.
Peter Van Geene faced allegations of poor professional performance on a total of 15 counts in relation to four women on whom he performed hysterectomies between 2009 and 2011 at Aut Even in Kilkenny.
The two allegations that were found to amount to poor professional performance were in relation to patient Helen Cruise. These related to the manner in which consent was obtained from Ms Cruise for her operation, and the way in which Mr Van Geene communicated with her during a post-operative conversation.
Specifically, the allegations that Mr Van Geene failed to adequately explain the procedures due to be carried out, as well as the risks involved, amounted to poor professional performance, the inquiry committee found.
The committee also found Mr Van Geene communicated with Ms Cruise in an incorrect or inappropriate manner during a post-operative conversation with her at St. Luke’s Hospital.
The sanctions that M. Van Geene will face, if any, will be decided upon at a later date. Possible sanctions include a fine or being struck off the medical register, amongst others.
Throughout the lengthy public inquiry, which met for a total of 10 days, the four women involved in the case were referred to as Patients A, B and C, as well as Ms Cruise, who was the only patient in this case to waive her right to anonymity.
In her closing remark, made before the findings were announced, barrister Neasa Bird, representing the chief executive of the Medical Council, highlighted the evidence given previously by Ms Cruise.
Ms Bird argued it was clear from Ms. Cruise’s evidence she did not fully understand what operation she was going in for and what the possibilities were during the surgery.
Ms Cruise had claimed Mr Van Geene only obtained her consent once she was in the operating theatre, after a spinal anaesthetic had been administered. Mr Van Geene, as well as one of his colleagues, said her consent was obtained outside the operating theatre, before the administration of anaesthetic.
Mr Van Geene previously told the inquiry this is not an ideal environment in which to obtain consent but argued there were mitigating circumstances that lead to this situation.
Ms Bird argued that all three expert witnesses who gave evidence at the inquiry agreed that it would have been important for consent to be obtained in a non-stress environment.
The barrister highlighted the fact that during his evidence in September, expert witness Dr Peter Boylan argued the manner in which consent was obtained from Helen Cruise amounted to poor professional performance.
During his evidence, Dr Boylan told the inquiry his main concerns related to the timing and manner in which consent had been obtained from Ms Cruise. He said the failure to obtain proper informed consent in this situation amounted to poor professional performance.
During his closing remarks, solicitor Eugene Gleeson, representing Mr Van Geene, argued the hysterectomy operations performed on all four of the women were uneventful, and that the blood loss at the time was minimal.
Mr Gleeson also addressed evidence given by Ms Cruise, describing her allegeations as extremely serious.
Regarding the allegation that Mr Van Geene only obtained her consent in the operating theatre, Mr Gleeson said: “This is an extraordinary allegation to make against a clinician.”
On Ms Cruise’s claim that Mr Van Geene slapped her hand and knee during a post-operative discussion, Mr Gleeson stated: “That is a ferocious allegation to make, a disgraceful allegation to make.”Throughout the inquiry, Mr Van Geene denied the allegations of poor professional performance.