Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [5.53 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the troubling circumstances surrounding the sad passing of one of my constituents, Mrs Joyce Featon. Mrs Featon passed away in 2004 at Royal North Shore Hospital having been transferred there after receiving what can only be described as unhappy treatment at Gosford Hospital.

In 1999, Mrs Featon had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, controlled adequately with diet and medication, and with multiple myeloma, which, though incurable, can be treated to the point of remission to provide a generally good and regular lifestyle. While these conditions required Mrs Featon to take medication and generally keep an eye on her health, Mrs Featon was said to have been in good shape and generally in good health. However, Mrs Featon had been feeling unwell and consequently had blood tests, which revealed she had deteriorated kidney function. Both multiple myeloma and type 2 diabetes are capable of causing kidney problems, so Mrs Featon was admitted to Gosford Hospital.

Mrs Featon was placed in the care of a medical specialist who determined that a kidney biopsy should be undertaken. The specialist allegedly failed to check all blood results prior to performing the biopsy, despite the fact that Mrs Featon's age, multiple myeloma and diabetes each put her in the high-risk category for post-procedure haemorrhage. Those tests, Mrs Featon's family later discovered, showed evidence of a clotting abnormality that would ordinarily have prohibited an invasive procedure such as a biopsy because of the increased risk of haemorrhage. Even more concerning is the failure to obtain written consent from Mrs Featon prior to conducting the biopsy. To obtain written consent, the patient must first be informed of the risks. The lack of written consent suggests that Mrs Featon was not advised of the risks. This is a clear failure in the hospital system. After the biopsy, Mrs Featon's kidney function was not monitored adequately, and after five days Mrs Featon suffered a significant, uncontrolled haemorrhage to the biopsied kidney.

Further blood tests—called mixing studies—were, again, not checked despite being available 12 hours after Mrs Featon's haemorrhage and, as a result, further tests were not ordered. This test, known as a clotting factor assay, would have shown which clotting protein was absent. As this test was not carried out, the proper treatment could not be provided. During a later Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] investigation, the specialist in question stated he knew about the clotting abnormality but Mrs Featon's medical records show no further tests were ordered and no synthetic clotting agent was administered. Mrs Featon's condition deteriorated and she was airlifted to Royal North Shore Hospital, where doctors undertook the necessary mixing study, identified the deficiency and administered a synthetic clotting agent known as Monofix. Unfortunately, their care and treatment was too late and Mrs Featon passed away on 11 March 2004.

Mrs Featon's daughter referred her treatment at Gosford Hospital to the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC]. In total, 34 separate concerns were raised with the HCCC ranging from the inadequacies of Mrs Featon's medical care through to the issues relating to failure to obtain consent. The HCCC inexplicably decided to investigate only four of the issues raised, and this was then reduced to two. To suggest that investigating only two of 34 issues is inadequate is an understatement. The issue of blood tests after Mrs Featon's biopsy was not one of the two issues selected by the HCCC for investigation. In fact, the specialist in question, despite being the admitting physician, was not even asked for a response. After persistent contact by Mrs Featon's family the HCCC reopened its investigation, with its internal medical advisors suggesting the mixing study oversight "raised significant questions". One of the internal medical advisers even told Mrs Featon's daughter that the investigation was being reopened "with a view to prosecution". But, again, the case was closed without proper explanation and the HCCC now advises that it considers the matter to be finalised.

The whole matter, I believe, raises serious concerns about the level of medical care provided to Mrs Featon by Gosford Hospital, the level of medical resources afforded to Gosford Hospital and the credibility of the HCCC in its investigation of a serious medical issue. A person otherwise of reasonably good health died in the care of one of our hospitals after a procedure conducted at Gosford Hospital, and, after five years, that person's family still do not have the answers they deserve and to which they are entitled. Mrs Featon's family are entitled to ask whether Mrs Featon would otherwise have lived a longer life were it not for the procedures carried out at Gosford Hospital. I request the Minister for Health to take note of my private member's statement today, and to take the necessary action to have Mrs Featon's case investigated further by the Health Care Complaints Commission.