Mrs P, a 40-year-old nurse, attended her GP complaining of back pain and was prescribed simple analgesia. After a month, the pain was no better so she consulted a private neurosurgeon, Mr S, who advised conservative measures.
One month later, Mrs P phoned Mr S to tell him her back pain had not improved and that she now had left-sided sciatica. This was confirmed by her GP, who arranged an MRI scan, which showed the disc bulge responsible for it. Overall, her condition was worse and she had been off work for over a month.
As Mrs P now had sciatica, Mr S felt that a microdiscectomy was a reasonable approach. He discussed the options with her over the phone, and explained the operation and its pros and cons. Mr S did record the phone call in the medical records, but did not state exactly what was discussed. Mrs P was happy to proceed and so the operation was arranged. Mr S wrote a letter to the GP informing him of the plan.
Mr S next saw Mrs P on the day of the operation as she was brought in to be anaesthetised. He had a brief conversation with her, confirming that she was happy to go ahead and that she had no questions. She then signed the consent form, which listed none of the pros and cons of the operation.
The operation was straightforward and there were no observed complications. However, two months after the operation Mrs P felt that her pain was worse, and she had genital numbness and urinary symptoms. Her urodynamic investigations were normal but she was numb in the S3 dermatome.
Mrs P brought a claim against Mr S, alleging that he had taken inadequate consent and had not informed her that the operation could make her pain worse. She also alleged that the operation had been negligently performed, damaging the left L5 root and the S2 and S3 roots bilaterally.
Expert opinion
Medical Protection sought expert opinion from a consultant neurosurgeon. The expert advised that although the consent form was inadequate, the overall consenting process, including the phone consultation and the brief discussion on the day of the operation, was just about acceptable.
The expert also opined that it was very unlikely that an experienced neurosurgeon, such as Mr S, would have damaged the nerves without noticing and recording it. He noted that there was no suggestion of nerve damage in the immediate post-operative period and suggested that deterioration occurring two months after the operation was more suggestive of a chronic pain syndrome.
The case was deemed defensible and taken to trial. The judge concluded that there had been no negligence during the operation, but that Mr S had taken inadequate consent. The ruling stated that Mrs P had not been warned of a 5% risk that the surgery could make her back pain worse and, if she had been, she would not have gone ahead. Mrs P was awarded a moderate sum.
Learning points
- Doctors must take reasonable steps to ensure that patients are aware of any risks that are material to them and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments.
- In deciding whether a risk is material, doctors should consider whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk.
- It is important to make a record of the consent discussion in the patient’s notes.