since 1970 and 1972 respectively. He has wide experience as a gastroenterologist and as a consultant physician. He has been a professor of medicine at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and has continued to practice in gastroenterology and general medicine both privately and at St Andrew’s Hospital. Professor Shearman was critical of many aspects of the deceased’s management at the Hospital, especially the management conducted by the team of practitioners led by Dr Dellamalva. Professor Shearman was of the view that the deceased’s penetrating duodenal ulcer should have been diagnosed, its potential for bleeding recognised and that she should have been treated accordingly. I will deal with some aspects of his criticism later in these findings. There was considerable variation between the accounts given by Drs Ahmadi, Tetenta and Dellamalva concerning the nature of information surrounding the deceased’s symptomatology and the evaluation of that information. In addition, there were marked differences between the approach to the deceased’s management as described by Dr Dellamalva in her police interview on the one hand and in her evidence before me on the other. It is as well to deal firstly with what Dr Tetenta told the police in his interview. I adopt a cautious approach to this material. Dr Tetenta was not called at the inquest and therefore did not have the opportunity to expand upon what he had said. He was not cross-examined. I therefore adopt a cautious approach to anything Dr Tetenta may have said which might reflect adversely on himself or other medical practitioners involved in this matter. I also adopt a cautious approach to evidence given in the inquest that might reflect adversely on Dr Tetenta and which he has had no opportunity to challenge. Dr Tetenta was interviewed on 18 May 2001, 15 months after the events at the Hospital in February 2000. As with the other practitioners interviewed by the police about this matter, I am prepared to act on the basis that before Dr Tetenta’s interview he had a limited opportunity to refresh his memory about the events of February 2000. It is apparent, however, that when he was interviewed, the interviewing officer had possession of the deceased’s Medical Record and that Dr Tetenta had access to them. Dr Tetenta was asked to examine Professor Shearman’s report of 18 February 2001 (Exhibit C13).
since 1970 and 1972 respectively. He has wide experience as a gastroenterologist and as a consultant physician. He has been a professor of medicine at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and has continued to practice in gastroenterology and general medicine both privately and at St Andrew’s Hospital. Professor Shearman was critical of many aspects of the deceased’s management at the Hospital, especially the management conducted by the team of practitioners led by Dr Dellamalva. Professor Shearman was of the view that the deceased’s penetrating duodenal ulcer should have been diagnosed, its potential for bleeding recognised and that she should have been treated accordingly. I will deal with some aspects of his criticism later in these findings. There was considerable variation between the accounts given by Drs Ahmadi, Tetenta and Dellamalva concerning the nature of information surrounding the deceased’s symptomatology and the evaluation of that information. In addition, there were marked differences between the approach to the deceased’s management as described by Dr Dellamalva in her police interview on the one hand and in her evidence before me on the other. It is as well to deal firstly with what Dr Tetenta told the police in his interview. I adopt a cautious approach to this material. Dr Tetenta was not called at the inquest and therefore did not have the opportunity to expand upon what he had said. He was not cross-examined. I therefore adopt a cautious approach to anything Dr Tetenta may have said which might reflect adversely on himself or other medical practitioners involved in this matter. I also adopt a cautious approach to evidence given in the inquest that might reflect adversely on Dr Tetenta and which he has had no opportunity to challenge. Dr Tetenta was interviewed on 18 May 2001, 15 months after the events at the Hospital in February 2000. As with the other practitioners interviewed by the police about this matter, I am prepared to act on the basis that before Dr Tetenta’s interview he had a limited opportunity to refresh his memory about the events of February 2000. It is apparent, however, that when he was interviewed, the interviewing officer had possession of the deceased’s Medical Record and that Dr Tetenta had access to them. Dr Tetenta was asked to examine Professor Shearman’s report of 18 February 2001 (Exhibit C13).
BUTLER%20Irene.docx