GMC COMPLAINTS

"We welcome responses from anyone who has a view about this draft guidance and are particularly keen to hear from individuals or organisations that are affected by the issues it raises."
www.gmc-uk.org/Guidance_for_all_doctors_...ted.pdf_61281552.pdf

"We will analyse the responses to the consultation and consider how we should adapt the guidance to take account of all the comments we receive."

That'd be a first

Refractive eye surgery is NOT cosmetic, but as former President of the RCOphth, Prof Harminder Dua, pointed out to me last year, laser and lens exchange surgery are being sold by some as cosmetic procedures.

Optegra's glossy TV ads for Clarivu are a perfect example:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551894...sleading-claims.html

Two months ago I was contacted by Jack (not his real name) who made allegations of malpractice and unethical procedures carried out at Optical Express Westfield clinic in March 2015.

Jack, and other patients that day, had paid and consented for Femtosecond NLR surgery with Dimitris Kazakos.
"All Laser Natural Lens Replacement Surgery is a method of performing your treatment which encompasses sophisticated non-invasive femtosecond laser technology.”
www.opticalexpress.co.uk/lens-surgery/what-is-lens-surgery.html

Following surgery to one eye Jack was told by another patient that the Femtosecond machine had been out of service since February, and they’d been given the more invasive (and less expensive) RLE procedure - without being informed or giving consent.

Left with visual problems Jack sent an email asking for my advice with attached copies of three letters he'd sent to David Mungall, Stephen Hannan and Lynsey Shaw, detailing his complaints and listing allegations of fraud, malpractice and negligence.

I advised Jack to contact the GMC and CQC urgently. However he became angry and told me he had only asked me for advice and that I should destroy the letters and not discuss anything he had told me.

I explained that I could not possibly pretend I didn’t know about his allegations and was amazed that he expected me to!

If true, this is a major issue on a number of levels; if the machine was out of action for only one month there were likely to be hundreds of people treated at Westfield between February and March, all in the same situation regardless of post op problems.

I added that a surgeon who consents a patient to one procedure but performs another can be struck off. I said that I could not ignore what Jack had told me, that I had a duty to everyone else who might have undergone the same experience and would pass on the information to the CQC, and hoped that he would also contact them.

I have spoken to countless numbers of people over the past few years, almost every single day. I give my time freely and do my utmost to help everyone. The majority of people want and appreciate my help, but sadly, once in a blue moon, there is someone who behaves selfishly and unreasonably.

I have not heard from Jack again, and nor did I contact the CQC.

Instead, on 17 April, I contacted the GMC and provided all the information they needed to investigate Jack’s allegations against Dimitris Kazakos and Optical Express.

On 12 May I received the following email from the GMC:

"Dear Ms Rodoy

Thank you for contacting us to raise your concerns about Dr Dimitris Kazakos and Optical Express.

You have raised concerns that Dr Kazakos is consenting patients for a procedure but then completing a more invasive procedure because the equipment used to complete the less invasive procedure is faulty.

We wrote to you to request copies of the letters you have received and patient consent to use their data.

Unfortunately you have advised that you are unable to obtain consent from the patients, and the redacted copies of the letters you have provided do not enable us to identify the patients to seek consent and further information ourselves.

We will be unable to investigate your concerns without direct evidence from the patients or the patients’ details as we will be unable to identify the specific allegations and incidents to which these allegations relate. For this reason we will not be investigating your concerns further at this time.

If the individual patients contact us to raise their concerns or if you are able to provide us with more substantive evidence then we may be able to review our decision at that time.

We understand that you have already raised your concerns with the General Optical Council, which would appear to be the appropriate course of action. You may also wish to contact the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to raise your concerns about the faulty equipment. They CQC can be contacted at:

Care Quality Commission
Citygate
Gallowgate
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PA
Tel: 03000 616161
Email: enquiries@cqc.org.uk

About our role

Our role is to ensure that doctors who are registered to practise medicine in the UK are safe to do so. We only take action where we believe we may need to restrict or remove a doctor’s registration to protect patients or the reputation of the medical profession.

Would you like to know more?

I understand that you may be disappointed by our decision not to undertake any further investigation. I enclose a factsheet that gives more information about the type of cases we do investigate that may help you understand why we have made this decision.

I appreciate that making a complaint can be difficult and we are grateful to you for bringing this matter to our attention. I hope this letter has been helpful to you in understanding the reasons for our decision.

I am sorry that the GMC is not able to help you at this time.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Shanahan
Enquiries Team"

Under Amy’s signature is written, "Working with doctors Working for patients
The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and take action when they are not met.”

Sadly, most damaged patients will disagree!

Amy’s letter incorrectly stated, "We understand that you have already raised your concerns with the General Optical Council, which would appear to be the appropriate course of action.”

I had never discussed this with the GOC (who regulate optoms and opticians, not surgeons) but I am very busy, so just in case I’d lost the plot I called the GOC, who assured me I had not discussed this matter with them at any time.

Frustrated with emails (and my tired painful eyes), I called Amy yesterday to express my dissatisfaction with the GMC decision, and to point out that I had not said I was discussing this with the GOC. I also mentioned the number of complaints against Dimitris Kazakos made to the GMC - none upheld!

I asked who was responsible for the decision not to investigate further, and Amy told me she couldn’t divulge the person’s name, but did advise that I can request it under the FOI Act.

Oh please! I have so many FOI requests in process I really don’t have time or inclination!

I am constantly amazed that the GMC is given so much information about negligent surgeons but do almost nothing about it! Whether Jack’s name was there or not, all pertinent details were, and it is surely the GMC's duty to investigate.

This is definitely also within the CQC’s remit, but as Julie Inggs chooses to ignore me and schmooze with David Moulsdale instead, on her head be it!

The matter is far from closed, and I give you my word, a number of people will have to explain their actions (or lack of) in the very near future!

Email sent to doctors yesterday:



It will be interesting to see how this affects Optical Express et al.

Meanwhile, if you haven't previously done so, I recommend reading the GMC's Good medical practice.

Some of the listed duties of a doctor registered with the General Medical Council:
• Make the care of your patient your first concern
• Be honest and open and act with integrity
• Never abuse your patients’ trust in you or the public’s trust in the profession

Compare the guidelines with the treatment you've received and some of you may decide you have good reason to make a complaint to the GMC:
www.gmc-uk.org/…/Good_medical_practice_-_English_091…

Paragraph 63 states:
"You must make sure you have adequate insurance or indemnity cover so that your patients will not be disadvantaged if they make a claim about the clinical care you have provided in the UK"

I'm told that, since April 2014, OE surgeons have a £40,000 personal excess (per claim) and question whether this will subsequently prove to be 'adequate' for some, especially those with multiple legal claims against them.

I never did complain to the GMC about my surgeon. I found him a bit intimidating at our first meeting but thought his surgical skill more important. There was little or nothing available on the Internet then about refractive lens exchange. I initially approached Optical Express considering an implantable contact lens. I was not given my consent form in advance of my 'consent appointment', only seeing it that day. I wish I had a least asked for a copy of it to take away with me. However it did not warn of vitreous problems anyway. Retinal detachment was mentioned, but known possible vitreous detachment within a few years of lens replacement was not on the consent form.

In a roundabout way my OE surgeon did me a huge favour, because it was entirely due to his uncaring, insensitive, aggressive attitude and manner towards me that I was driven to seek my own second opinion with a 'top' surgeon elsewhere.

I hate to think what could have happened had I undergone the laser treatment being recommended by the OE optometrist, which the surgeon was going along with: "should I wish to go ahead... but it could make things worse!" This would have been "madness" to quote 'top' surgeon. Why was my OE surgeon not questioning this?

This is the danger of the Optical Express 'model of care', where surgeons perform treatments assessed and recommended by optometrists instead of the surgeons themselves!!

After first contacting me In 2013, ‘Fred’ made complaints to the GMC concerning various treatments he received at the hands of Stefan Klopper, Jan Venter and Andre Oberholster.

In April 2014 the GMC wrote to Fred:
"The Assistant Registrar noted that when we considered the allegations against Dr Klopper at the triage stage of our procedures, we recognised that these related to your consultations with him in 2007 and that as we were not told about these until November 2013, we had to consider our “5 year rule”. This is something we must apply in all cases if the doctor’s actions complained about happened more than five years before the complaint is made. There is an element of discretion that allows us to waive this rule if it ‘is in the public interest in the exceptional circumstances of the case’. When exercising that discretion there are various factors that need to be taken into account as explained to you in our earlier correspondence when the decision was made.”

Stephanie Holloway’s complaint against Dr Joanna McGraw was similarly dismissed because of the "5 year rule”, yet after her court victory the GMC decided to re-open it.

Amazing what press interest can achieve

Investigating Fred’s complaints against Jan Venter and Andre Oberholster, the GMC commissioned expert medico legal reports earlier this year.

In June ’14 Fred asked for copies of the reports.

Lawyers for Drs Venter & Oberholster fought to prevent this, but the GMC fought back and the records were finally released to Fred last week.

These reports are absolutely horrifying and unarguably incriminating, yet the GMC say neither surgeon has a case to answer!

It is a fact that Dimitris Kazokos, Stefan Klopper, David Teenan, Jan Venter and Andre Oberholster have all had/have multiple legal claims against them, with countless complaints made to the GMC.

Yet each time the GMC repeatedly rule that the same OE surgeons have no case to answer.

I have expressed my concerns about this to the GMC, to no avail, but with Fred’s reports soon to be publicly available there is finally documentation to prove that the GMC are negligent and derelict in their duty to protect patients.

They're quick to act if a surgeon is proven to have sexually abused a patient, but blind one and irreparably damage their eyes - no case to answer!

In my opinion - and Fred's, the GMC is not fit for purpose, exhibiting a complete lack of responsibility.

Is it perhaps that the GMC worry they won't be able to cope with the slew of complaints that will follow when an OE surgeon is publicly investigated, and therefore scared to open Pandora's box?

Too late, because I've already forced open the lid, and no matter how much money OE pay their PR company, they can't close it now.

The truth will out

Hi I am looking for some help.

Please contact me if you have made ANY complaint to the GMC regrading any of the following surgeons:
1. [strike]Prof[/strike] Dr Jan Venter
2.Dr Stefan Klopper
3 Dr Andre Oberholster

I have made complaints about all 3 and would simply like to know how many other complaints have been made against them.

Please contact me c/o admin@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk

I will treat any replies in the strictest confidence.

Hi.
I was just wondering what trouble you have had with Klopper and Venter? Asking as need help myself regarding Optical Excuse for sh*t treatment and now lack of sight.
Many thanks in advance
_________________
admin: Please send email and i will forward to 'Fedup' admin@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk

It's been a long hard road and today I took my first steps to fight back.

I have made two complaints to the GMC concerning Stefan Klopper and [strike]Professor [/strike] Dr Jan Venter. Both of whom have ruined my eyes with 8 different procedures over the last 5 years.

Joanna McGraw will be most unhappy!

I have submitted a complaint.

muhahahahahahaha.

Let's make them suffer like we are!

Multiple complaints have now gone in about Stefan Klopper.

I must add that doing a complaint via the GMC is a great thing to do to add weight to any legal case folks may have going, my particular complaint and it's various replies have been like gold dust for my litigation case with some really good information.