would have rendered him less likely to have responded well to treatment for infection (T240). Associate Professor Fitzgerald strongly disagreed with Dr He said: Finnis’ view. I don't believe it. It is absolutely contrary to how people practise medicine. They ‘Yes. want people to present early so they can intervene early to prevent subsequent complications. You have a look at the referring doctor's examination on 7 March where he indicates that the patient, clinically, now has a consolidated lung - he has drawn that as a diagram on his referring letter - and two days previously that didn't exist. So, he has had significant progress of the underlying diseased state. So, I can't honestly say, even though I'd like to, but I can't honestly that earlier treatment wouldn't have made any difference. I honestly believe it would have made a significant difference.’ (T344) In addition, Associate Professor Fitzgerald pointed to the deterioration in the appearance and of his vital signs that had taken place between 5 March deceased’s and 7 March 2002, the day on which he was diagnosed accurately. There were significant differences in presentation, temperature and pulse rate and air entry to the lungs (T346). Associate Professor Fitzgerald was particularly persuasive in this regard and I accept his analysis of the situation. In my view, the chances of successful treatment and survival would have deceased’s been significantly enhanced had he been properly evaluated and his lung infection been detected on 5 March 2002. The matter is less clear in relation to 6 March 2002 given the passage of time, but I accept Associate Professor evidence at Fitzgerald’s T313 that earlier diagnosis and intervention on that date might have made some difference to the outcome. The availability of the 5 March 2002 x-ray report to doctors on 5 and 6 March 2002 Dr Finnis told me that it was not surprising to him that the x-ray report was not seen by the practitioners who were involved in the presentation 5 March 2002. deceased’s Dr Finnis spoke of the overburdening of Emergency Departments and the queuing of the review of radiological reports such that he would have been astounded if it had been made available within a few hours. On the other hand, he thought that the report would have been available on 6 March 2002 which raises in my view a very serious question mark as to why its contents were not evaluated on that occasion.
would have rendered him less likely to have responded well to treatment for infection (T240). Associate Professor Fitzgerald strongly disagreed with Dr Finnis’ view. He said: ‘Yes. I don't believe it. It is absolutely contrary to how people practise medicine. They want people to present early so they can intervene early to prevent subsequent complications. You have a look at the referring doctor's examination on 7 March where he indicates that the patient, clinically, now has a consolidated lung - he has drawn that as a diagram on his referring letter - and two days previously that didn't exist. So, he has had significant progress of the underlying diseased state. So, I can't honestly say, even though I'd like to, but I can't honestly that earlier treatment wouldn't have made any difference. I honestly believe it would have made a significant difference.’ (T344) In addition, Associate Professor Fitzgerald pointed to the deterioration in the deceased’s appearance and of his vital signs that had taken place between 5 March and 7 March 2002, the day on which he was diagnosed accurately. There were significant differences in presentation, temperature and pulse rate and air entry to the lungs (T346). Associate Professor Fitzgerald was particularly persuasive in this regard and I accept his analysis of the situation. In my view, the deceased’s chances of successful treatment and survival would have been significantly enhanced had he been properly evaluated and his lung infection been detected on 5 March 2002. The matter is less clear in relation to 6 March 2002 given the passage of time, but I accept Associate Professor Fitzgerald’s evidence at T313 that earlier diagnosis and intervention on that date might have made some difference to the outcome. The availability of the 5 March 2002 x-ray report to doctors on 5 and 6 March 2002 Dr Finnis told me that it was not surprising to him that the x-ray report was not seen by the practitioners who were involved in the deceased’s presentation 5 March 2002. Dr Finnis spoke of the overburdening of Emergency Departments and the queuing of the review of radiological reports such that he would have been astounded if it had been made available within a few hours. On the other hand, he thought that the report would have been available on 6 March 2002 which raises in my view a very serious question mark as to why its contents were not evaluated on that occasion.