Groote Schuur Hospital misdiagnoses, treats patient for fake disease

 Groote Schuur Hospital’s (GSH) Urology Clinic diagnosed a Cape Flats resident for a neuro-urological condition. She was under their care for four years and during this time put on multiple courses of medication.

 The patient told me last year doctors abruptly said they had “misdiagnosed” – she did not have the condition after all. They offered no explanation or apology and casually discharged her. She now suffers from cortisone-induced diabetes, a potentially life-threatening chronic illness.

 The patient wrote to GSH’s “superintendent”, likely CEO Dr Bhavna Patel.  She was called to a meeting and met Professor “Hickman”, the neuro-urology specialism head, and another doctor, likely part of the management team.

 Without the patient mentioning it at any stage in email or meeting, Hickman mentioned the prospect of the patient taking legal action, apparently all they were concerned about.

 She told them she understood misdiagnoses occur. All she wanted, as any patient does,w an explanation and apology. She did not say whether they gave her that much, though.

 This is an obvious case of malpractice by many doctors over the four years. Her health and life have been impaired during and after so-called treatment for a fictitious condition.

 But rather than show concern and examine their conduct as regulated in health law, Western Cape Health Department (WCHD) and UCT Medical School staffs are only concerned about covering up, never accepting personal responsibility, and fears of lawsuits even when patients do not raise the issue.

 I had a similar experience at the same clinic. During March and April I attended the clinic three times for significant acute conditions, confirmed in December 2021 by my GP and private scans. Instead, the department's doctors ignored why I was there and focused on a tangential matter that until then neither or nor my GP were aware was an issue.

 At my first visit in beginning of March, the junior registrar said I might have cancer and must undergo a biopsy. His physical exam found something “suspicious that makes one think of cancer”, he said.

 A month later a second doctor cancelled the biopsy when I was already prepared, undressed in a hospital gown, for the procedure and in the biopsy room. Irritated, he disagreed with his colleague and said I did not have cancer.

 My family and I worried for a month I might have cancer, and I prepared mentally for an unpleasant medical procedure – the biopsy. This doctor did not apologise or show empathy but took out his annoyance at his colleague on me with a rough physical exam.

 Despite saying nothing was wrong, he prescribed therapeutic medication without asking or checking my medical record for other medication I was on that in combination would have an adverse effect. I did so myself by reading the package insert and internet. I found the two in combination would multiply their effects and have potentially dangerous outcomes.

 He did not examine or address the known existing conditions for which I went to the hospital and still had not received treatment for.

 I complained to Patel about Urology’s management of my care which she referred to GSH operations manager Dr Belinda Jacobs and Urology head Prof. John Lazarus of UCT Medical School.

 I returned to the clinic in April where Lazarus attended to me. He was the third doctor I saw in the same clinic about the same matters – the conditions I originally went for.

 After a physical exam, he confirmed I did not have cancer but “it’s good that someone senior [himself] has a look”. He was referring to his juniors’ different diagnoses.

 About my real conditions, he told me what I already knew. For the one, he found no further action was necessary, and second, referred me to the acute care clinic. He promised a referral for an unrelated complaint but as of writing, I’ve had no word of an appointment.

 On Tuesday April 26 I attended Acute Care for the one condition that had been worsening over the past few months. The doctor I saw was the fourth person over four visits in two months, telling my story all over again as I did each time before. This was because urology had not known what they were doing and for two months sent me backwards and forwards.

 The doctor looked at Urology’s notes and asked if they had taken any scans. I replied not, but one would expect so because a tertiary hospital ought to make its own findings.

 After she and a colleague examined me, she advised home care with “elective surgery” at an unstated future time.  Ironically, despite saying my condition was “not urgent”, she informed me of the serious medical risk of leaving it as is without surgery – the internal organ could "die”, and all that means medically.

 I asked when surgery might be possible. She consulted a senior doctor who examined me and immediately said I needed surgery. As I left the hospital, she called with an appointment for August 24. Had I not questioned her, I would have been discharged to home care an obstructed and decaying body part.

 I don’t have a problem with waiting lists but urology wasted two critical months of my life, with its impact on my health, with its diagnostically pointless flip-flopping. It pushed back time for treatment for conditions I was originally referred for. Even if they were concerned about tangential matters, nothing except mismanagement and incompetence prevented simultaneous treatment at more than one clinic.  This indicates WCHD’s blinkered silo approach to patient care. 

WCHD, as all government, does not really investigate complaints, except perhaps superficially. There modus operandi is to shift blame, obfuscate, lie and cover up. Yet in its annual reports it claims almost one hundred percent complaint resolution. But they mean resolved to their satisfaction, which is cover up and ignore, not patients’.

 My and others patients’ experiences show there is a deficiency of training and an absence – the full extent not clear – of the patient-centred approach among practitioners, personally and organisationally.

 Many WCHD staff, especially doctors, have a superior attitude, lack empathy, don’t really listen to patients and are condescending. This would not be so bad if they were good at their jobs. My and the other urology patient’s cases show an absence of duty of care on many levels including personally managers Patel, Jacobs and Lazarus.

 Stories about urology show something is very wrong there in particular. I think the questionable quality of UCT Medical School’s training is responsible too.

 I received nothing from my visits to urology, not treatment or even peace of mind. My health and quality of life is worsening a little each month. For this I’ve given up four days to attend the hospital, arriving there early in the morning. It’s not even worth the low state rate patients pay. 

 Footnote: 

Like many of his colleagues, per the internet, Lazarus is also a consultant at UCT Private Academic Hospital, in addition to duties at Groote Schuur. 

I’m certain there they spare no expense and effort treating medical insurance patients who do not get the run-around state patients receive.