Cancer Centre Staff Supportive of Review Results
Friday, April 12, 2013 @ 4:00 AM
Dr. Max Coppes and Dr. Marianne Taylor review the final report – photo-250News
Prince George, B.C. – Staff at the Northern Cancer Centre in Prince George have reacted well to the results of the review of the practice of Dr. Suresh Katakkar, the former head of Oncology at the centre. “The staff have reacted with support” says Dr. Max Coppes, President of the BC Cancer Agency. “They really felt that through the events that have happened, that we’ve listened, that we care, that we understand that as a community they’ve been affected by this. They’re happy we took a concern raised by one of them seriously and have lived up to the expectation that patient safety and patient quality are at the utmost importance to the organization.”
The final report was released yesterday ( see previous story)
Tipped off to unconventional treatment by Dr. Katakkar, the Agency launched a review of patient files. The review concluded that 54 of the cases ( about 10% of his practice) had issues where patient care was not standard, and unacceptable. Of those cases, 8 resulted in preventable patient harm, and four involved potentially “preventable treatment related death”. The full report can be accessed here.
Dr. Coppes says there is a process in place for physicians to apply to try different treatments “Sometimes, and physicians have the right, to say ‘maybe this treatment is not the best for my patient’. We acknowledge that, we’ve got a process in place whereby physicians can ask the experts ‘am I right in thinking that? Is it reasonable to provide a better care?’ and we get about 5,000 requests per year and we answer those within 24 hours most of the time. 91% of the time, we say ‘yup, that’s actually a very good call’ . Nine percent we say ‘well, let’s talk about that , is that really the best?’ So I think we have the best of both worlds. We have the standards of care, and we have a mechanism for an individual physician to wonder if the standard of care really applies for this patient .”
The B.C. Cancer Agency doesn’t know what those former patients, or in the case where patients have died their survivors, will do with this information. Dr. Coppes says all patients and families have been advised of the results of the review and he doesn’t have any information at this point on possible financial compensation for those people, nor does he have any information on possible legal action against the BC Cancer Agency on behalf of those patients.
Dr. Katakkar was hired in 2010 from Tucson Arizona, where he had been a successful oncologist for nearly 30 years. He arrived in Prince George in January of 2011. In late 2011, a concern was raised about a treatment regime for a patient. There was a review and some concerns were identified but before the plan for corrective action could be finalized, more concerns were raised. Dr. Katakkar was suspended with pay on May 22nd , 2012. On June 7th he resigned. As his license to practice was linked to his employment with the BC Cancer Agency, resigning from that post meant his license to practice in B.C. was revoked. He has since returned to Arizona and has provided medical coverage on a locum basis in that State. Last summer he was recognized with a national U.S. award citing him as being voted one of the most compassionate physicians in the U.S.
Comments
It seems to depend on which good old boys club you belong to, sad!
The question I have is by whom is the patient being treated – the Agency or the doctor.
I would assume the agency has no license to practice medicine. The Doctor does.
Therefore, in my mind, it becomes very easy. If the Agency can dictate through a practice standards committee what a doctor can and cannot do, they then take on all liability. Simple.
If a patient dies or is severely handicapped through a decision of the Agency, and the Doctor willingly agrees to go with the lowest common denominator decision of a committee, then the doctor can also be found liable because he should have denied that option if he, in his best practices opinion, could not accept it.
It is a Catch 22 situation. I wonder how well protected the Committee members are? Also, how their credentials and experience compare to Katakkar. That doctor, as it says, has a superlative record from the point of view of caring. He rates well over 90% by patient assessment. You know, those people who he serves. There is no doctor-patient relationship involved with the Agency and its committee members.
I hope for many reasons that I do not get cancer. Knowing how the process works now, is another reason I have to fear cancer.
He survived the PG harsh climate in BC less than 1.5 years. But 540 patients over 1.5 years is a bit too much load for one doctor.
Everyone wants a magic pill and there are plenty of quacks willing to “treat” them. Lesson learned.
@Gus – a committee? You make it sound like a bunch of faceless bureaucrats with minimal background make the decisions when it comes to setting protocols that doctors follow.
Science and technology advances at such a fast pace any Doctor struggles to keep current on their own.
Doctors who are experts in analysing research, Doctors who are experts in specific cancers, statisticians, ethicists, pathologists, pharmacists etc. all have input into creating protocols. Those protocols are based on the best and most current research.
The Doctor clearly ignored the basic guidelines regarding conducting his experimental cure. Even for using a noninvasive experiment using human subjects (or even animals) one needs to get special approvals before conducting the experiments and the health authority badly failed the patients.
His cure re-infecting the patient with a weaker version of the very active cancer cells, specially at that very late stage of Cancer, probably did little other than contributing to the more spread of the disease and the total collapse of the weakened immune system. I wouldn’t allow such wild idea to be applied to my dear ones.
Stop defending his mistake so that he stops repeating it again.
It looks like neither Sasha nor univ understand the nature of the modern practice of oncology.
Oncology goes beyond the science of molecular biology, screening, statistical analysis etc. It includes the notion of supportive oncology, palliative care, and quality of life issues.
No committee of distant doctors who have never touched the hands of the patient can put themselves into the position of the doctor who has followed the patient through for months and often years, has met the people close to the patient and treats the whole person, not a statistic.
This Doctor has received the highest recognition as a Compassionate Doctor.
From the linked page: âThe Patients’ Choice annual Compassionate Doctor recognition program honors the top 3% of U.S. physicians, including Dr. Katakkar, whose patients have gone out of their way to give them the highest possible ratings in the category of bedside manner, while also ranking them very highly in five other categories.
The basis of this award â a doctor’s bedside manner score â is particularly important, because it conveys the level of comfort a patient feels. Medical research has shown that the more comfortable a patient is with his doctor, the more likely he is to disclose all important health information and follow a prescribed treatment plan, thus leading to a better outcome.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases-test/dr-suresh-katakkar-of-tucson-az-is-honored-as-a-compassionate-doctor-166316286.html
In case people think that the BC Cancer Agency is a perfect bureaucracy
Files mishandled at BC Cancer Agency
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/138900334.html
Medicine is not a perfect science. Each human body is unique as are reactions to a palette of treatment options.
As far as Holly Hillâs family seems to look at this, the BC Cancer Agency is protecting its backside with the report it put out.
“Last summer he was recognized with a national U.S. award citing him as being voted one of the most compassionate physicians in the U.S.”
This is very puzzling to me! He conducted his career in a satisfactory manner there in Tucson for many decades, he even won this award and now he went back to work again in the States. How exactly did he run afoul of the local customs if here was a system in place to allow for extraordinary life savings methods beyond the usual routines?
In order to understand the defects of Dr Katakkar’s dangerous experiment, you need to have a basic understanding of genomics of cancer cells and the transcriptional switches from dormancy state to growth and multiplication and spread of tumor; and the obstacles these states cause for both chemotherapy and for current genomic research in personalized cure for cancer.
Unfortunately in PG, common sense rules and professional practices are being trampled with no proper supervision. It is also becoming a pattern here on this site for some to defend those in PG who have broken the copyright rules (e.g. IEEE plagiarism case in UNBC) and now this doctor violating the medical rules.
You don’t ignore the rules of roads in driving against the flow of traffic in a highway because it will cause accidents that could kill you and others. But in the streets of government entities in PG there are those even with PhDs and doctoral degrees who are driving against the basic social guidelines and rules (literally speaking) and damaging others. … UNBC IEEE crash(accident in 2007) … UNBC WIDC scandal (accident in 2010-11)… PG Cancer agency crash (accident 2011-12) …
“We have forgotten the basic SOCIAL CONTRACT of rights and responsibilities that binds us together as a society. Society expects citizens to follow laws it has instated in order to protect individuals and institutions. Without these laws there would be chaos — the strong would simply take anything they wanted and the rest would have no recourse.” [Robert Alan Silverstein]
“Without these laws there would be chaos — the strong would simply take anything they wanted and the rest would have no recourse”
Let me accept the notion the quote projects ….. it can be applied to anything …
The strong in this case???? The Agency
The rest in this case???? Dr. Katakkar and patients such as Hill.
It is simple … individuals are always sacrificed for the masses when push comes to shove. We have the classical fight between those who have a duty to the masses â the Agency â and a duty to the individual â the Doctor.
Objective people will notice the Catch 22. Subjective people will pick a side and become dogmatic.
I am simply standing back and observing the ethical question which has only a grey answer. It is not black and white. There are those who have publicly spoken in favour of the Doctor and others who have spoken in favour of the Agency. Each of the two parties is acting according to their own conscience (not that I think an Agency can have a conscience).
Dr. Coppesâ career path has been one tending towards bureaucracy. Dr. Katakkarâs career path has been towards direct treatment of patients. I have more respect for the latter type of individual when it comes to professional practice.
Similar to what is said about teachers, those who can practice medicine, do; those who canât practice medicine, administrate. ;-)
So, you like to quote Silverstein, univ?
You forgot to quote this one with respect to the Doctor who won an award for being compassionate.
“Every act of compassion makes a difference. Be a hero a better world!”
===================================
From the report by the agency:
The following contributing factors were identified:
1. Lack of orientation and supervision, including a performance review.
That was the duty of the Agency. It was the beginning of the communications breakdown – the orientation of working for the Agency as it is different from working in Tucson for his own practice.
This is another Silverstein quote directed at the Agency’s failure to inform.
“Many of the conflicts in our lives and in the world are caused by misunderstandings. Sometimes we jump to conclusions about why others do things. Sometimes we don’t understand the cultural differences of others. Poor communication makes the conflict worse. Real dialogue can often lead to understanding, helping communities to get along much better.”
I gave my 2 cents based on my study of Cancer cells. Of course there is lots of politics involved too, I have seen people in PG with 100% failure in their job performance in PG who remained in their position and later promoted.
I agree that “real dialogue” is preferable to costly wars, but it only works if you have a listening party on the other side of the line, and ready to put the problem under the microscope.
âIf the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.â
[Abraham H. Maslow, Psychology Prof.]
“The Nail That Sticks Out Gets Hammered”
[Japanese proverb]
Comments for this article are closed.