2015 July 14, Ear/ENT excerpts from letter to CPSO

July 14, 2015 Ear/ENT. Excerpts from my letter to CPSO Investigator, responding to her June 26 letter which included comments by my gp/family doctor.      

see article:
CPSO: transparency in the complaint process
Sue’s Views on the News
September 13, 2015

The main problem with the appointment on March 4, 2014 that [my gp] refers to in his letter, in “Audiotape of March 4 Meeting” is not that he raised his voice but that I made it for the purpose of discussing the administration of my ear problem; in fact, I made a point of telling the receptionist that when I made the appointment.  However, at the appointment, as the tape recording indicates, [my gp] immediately moved away from discussing the problems of the 3 ENT referrals to asking once more about my ear and examining it. Strangely, he never once mentioned the non-existent report from [the ENT specialist], even though that ENT appointment had been more than 6 months earlier. At the beginning of that appointment on March 4 I did not mention the report from [the ENT specialist], as on other occasions he had told me it was for his eyes only, saying it was private, not for the patient to read. I had hoped we could move past that.

 . . . . . . . . .

  . . . . first of all, he sent me to a hearing clinic to see an ENT specialist despite my telling him there was nothing wrong with my hearing; next, I was told by [the ENT specialist]’s receptionist that although a hearing test had been set up for me before the appointment, I did not need to take it (The ENT specialist’s report [included with the letter to the Investigator from my gp, suggests that it was later on, during the appointment, that I refused to take it). When I showed up on the day of the appointment, a hearing test had been scheduled for me, though I had declined the offer, so once again, I said I would rather talk to the hearing clinic ENT specialist first. Lastly, while I had two ultrasounds done, presumably [my gp] neglected to inform his secretary that the first one no longer applied and not to send it as it adds nothing to the information the ENT specialist would require. I had had the test redone, at the same imaging lab, as the first ultrasound was done on the wrong area. That kind of error on his part – sending both – may also have made me appear difficult, as I think [the ENT specialist] may have thought, from his abrupt response when I asked him if he had received the report. Yes, both of them, he retorted. Besides that, if he required a hearing a test, that should have been stated originally. In fact, I should never have been sent to an ENT specialist who worked for a hearing clinic. Although [the ENT specialist]’s report suggests I told him my hearing was better in one ear than the other, I told him, and the secretary, and [my gp] that there was nothing wrong with my hearing. I should never have been sent to the [xxx] hearing clinic, and I should have waited until my ear problems could have been addressed by an ENT who didn’t start off on that note.

While some of what happened was a misunderstanding, some of it was poor planning on the part of [my gp]. It seems more than likely to me that the reason I never got to see the original report was because [the ENT specialist] commented on some aspect of those miscommunications.

At the appointment I had with [my gp] on March 4, 2014, he made no comment on the fact there had been no report from [the ENT specialist] yet, despite my ear being the topic of discussion. I didn’t mention the non-existent report as I had previously asked to see it and gotten nowhere so had decided to move on from there and try to sort out the problems with the administration of the ear problem at that March 4 appointment. So, he would have you believe that he referred me to two other specialists (one was 18 months down the road so another one was made) without attempting to find out what the first one said. I am not happy about this situation being such a fiasco, and then [my gp] trying to claim it was me who was a “difficult” patient.

 . . . . . . . . . .


Sue McPherson

No comments: