A private hospital surgeon breached health's consumers' rights code by failing to fully inform a cancer patient about his treatment options and the associated risks with complicated and prolonged prostate cancer surgery, the Health and Disability Commissioner says.
The patient, a 69-year-old man identified as Mr A, developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after the surgery late last year.
Mr A said the "drastic medical misadventure" caused him non-stop pain in his legs and back which severely restricted his mobility.
The surgeon, a nurse and the private hospital - none of whom were identified - were negligent in their care, he said.
Mr A was first told he had cancer while on holiday overseas.
After talking to the surgeon on the telephone he agreed to robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostate surgery two days after his return to New Zealand, commissioner Ron Paterson said in his report.
Mr A was told the operation would take five to six hours.
"Technical difficulties were encountered and the operation took approximately 11 hours," Mr Paterson said.
"The man (Mr A) was positioned with his legs raised and supported in stirrups. His legs could not be removed from the stirrups and lowered during the operation because it would have required time-consuming repositioning of the robot."
After the surgery Mr A complained of severe leg pain - identified the following day as DVT.
He underwent 10 further operations on his leg and suffered renal failure.
Mr Paterson found the surgeon failed to inform Mr A that he had limited experience with the robotic-assisted surgery.
He had also failed to inform Mr A of the length of time he had taken on previous similar operations and that the risks of complications increased if time taken for the surgery was prolonged and what those risks were.
The surgeon accepted he had breached the code of health and disability services consumers' rights code.
Mr A said had he known the surgery would take longer than five or six hours he would have reconsidered his options.
Mr Paterson found the nurse had made an inappropriate comment about the patient at the reception desk and she was reminded she should treat all patients with dignity and respect at all times.
The incident should not mar her long record of nursing service, he said. Her clinical care was of good standard and the private hospital had provided appropriate post-operative care, he said.
NZPA