Return
File Number: Med15/323D
Practitioner: Uwe Seidenfaden
Hearing Start Date:Hearing End Date:
Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:
Communication inadequate/inappropriate
Established on appeal
(Established)
Assessment - inadequate/inappropriate
Established on appeal
(Established)
Treatment - care inadequate/inappropriate
Established on appeal
(Established)
Drugs/medication - inappropriate administration (Not Established)
Additional Orders:
Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client
Patient granted interim suppression of name and identifying features
720Med15323D.pdf
Name Suppression to Practitioner
Practitioner granted permanent name suppression
778Med15323D.pdf
Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client
Patient and patients husband granted permanent name suppression
778Med15323D.pdf
Other Suppression Orders
Surgeon granted permanent name suppression
778Med15323D.pdf
Appeal Decision:
Full Decision
Outcome
The Director of Proceedings appealed the Tribunal's decision to the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of the Tribunal as to liability. (The Director of Proceedings v A [2016] NZHC 2299). Decision on Penalty: Director Proceedings v Seidenfaden [2017] NZHC 390
Dr Seidenfaden sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed leave to appeal and lifted the order for interim name suppression (Seidenfaden v Director of Proceedings [2017] NZHC 390).
Precis of Decision: Charge
On 2 to 5 November 2015, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal considered a charge of professional misconduct laid by the Director of Proceedings against the anaesthetist Dr N (the Doctor).
The charge alleged that the Doctor failed to ensure adequate anaesthesia prior to or during a caesarean section in that he failed to observe and/or communicate with his patient during the caesarean section to ascertain the patient's level of discomfort, and/or pain and/or failed to take adequate steps to promptly manage and/or alleviate the sensation of pain during the operation.
Finding
The Tribunal found that in the absence of firm evidence to guide best practice in regard to the administration of a dose of anaesthesia used, it was left to clinical judgement to decide which drug to use and in what dose for epidural top-up.
The Tribunal also found that the Doctor's situational awareness was below the standard expected but that this was not sufficiently below as to warrant a finding of misconduct. The Tribunal noted that there were others in the theatre who, if they had significant concerns about the patient's level of pain and discomfort they too could have taken further steps to alert the Doctor. The Tribunal said that it is not enough to simply say the obligation for pain relief and comfort lay with the anaesthetist without there being some mutuality about the obligation to ensure that the best for the patient is achieved.
The Tribunal found that the charge was not established and granted the Doctor permanent name suppression.
The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.
The Director of Proceedings has appealed the Tribunal's decision. The High Court granted the appeal and quashed the Tribunal's decision on liability (Director of Proceedings v Seidenfaden [2017] NZHC 390).
Dr Seidenfaden sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed leave to appeal and lifted the order for interim name suppression (Seidenfaden v Director of Proceedings [2017] NZCA 267)
The High Court made orders of censure and imposed a fine of $9,000. 40% of the costs of and incidental to the HPDT hearing were awarded. The Court further referred the penalty decision to the Medical Council for any further steps taken if needed.