Doctor fined for failing to inform patient of ‘abnormal’ cancer test result
AFP file photo
SINGAPORE — A doctor who wrongly told a patient that his cancer markers were “normal” has been censured and fined S$10,000 by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
The male patient was later diagnosed by another doctor to be suffering from colorectal cancer, and had to undergo surgery and a six-month course of chemotherapy.
In a statement yesterday, the council said that Dr Fernandes Mark Lee, 43, was found guilty of failing to provide medical services “of the quality that was reasonable to expect of him” under the Medical Registration Act, including failing to accurately communicate the patient’s abnormal test result to him.
The patient, who was not identified, had gone for a health screening at Asia HealthPartners in Lucky Plaza on Feb 9, 2012. He later received a medical report prepared by Dr Fernandes, with a summary note stating that the cancer markers of his test were “normal”.
However, the laboratory results that came with the medical report showed that the patient’s carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) — used to test for proteins in the blood of those who have colorectal cancer — was 16.5 ng/ml and was an “abnormal” result.
A CEA level of 16.5 ng/ml is outside the normal range of 0 to 5 ng/ml, and is considered to be high.
A disciplinary tribunal, which held an inquiry into the case in March, found that because of Dr Fernandes’ oversight, the patient “lost the opportunity” to take earlier follow-up action, and saw a specialist only about 20 months later.
In June 2014, the patient decided to lodge a complaint with the SMC.
In a written explanation to the council’s complaints committee, Dr Fernandes admitted that he had overlooked the abnormal CEA readings and pleaded guilty to the charge.
The SMC said: “The Disciplinary Tribunal was of the view that a breach ... of the Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines is a serious violation which could damage public trust and confidence in the medical profession. Such a failure is also contrary to the goal of having early intervention by undergoing health screenings, and that such a breach of the said (guidelines) should not be condoned.”
However, the tribunal also considered several mitigating factors, including Dr Fernandes’ unblemished record, his good character references, the measures taken by him to improve his practice, and decided not to suspend his licence.
