Doctor barred from surgery
Date: December 6 2008
Nick Miller
AN OVERSEAS-TRAINED doctor has been barred from performing surgery at the Royal Hobart Hospital after only two months in the job, after a series of botched operations.
Experts have asked how Dr Nandalal Gunaratne, originally from Sri Lanka, was ever allowed to practise as a hospital urology consultant.
While no patient has suffered long-term damage, a local specialist told The Age that Dr Gunaratne had had trouble with even the most basic operations, such as circumcision.
Several times other surgeons had to be brought into the operating theatre to stem major bleeding and patch up the patient.
By this time doctors were complaining to the hospital about the appointment.
"How on earth did he get through the Medical Council, and how did the hospital appoint him?" one specialist asked.
"He was obviously totally out of his depth. Nobody died but a disaster could have occurred."
A hospital spokeswoman yesterday confirmed that Dr Gunaratne had worked at the hospital as a consultant since late September.
She said he remained employed at the hospital, but was "currently on leave" and a supervision report on his work had been sent to the Medical Council of Tasmania.
Asked why Dr Gunaratne was allowed to practise as a urology consultant in the first place, the hospital spokeswoman said: "That's a better question for the Medical Council we can only look at them after registration."
She said the hospital could not comment further on the case.
However, The Age understands that Dr Gunaratne has been relieved of his clinical load, after his supervisors realised the problems he was having with the work.
He was given the right to practise under the "area of need" scheme by the Medical Council of Tasmania. It certified him to be employed as a staff specialist urologist, under the supervision of the hospital's chief medical officer.
The Age was unable to contact the Medical Council of Tasmania for comment yesterday afternoon. It was also unable to locate Dr Gunaratne for comment.
Dr John Quinn, executive director of surgical affairs for the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said he could not comment directly on the case because he was not aware of the particular circumstances.
However, he said it was important that before any surgeon was permitted to work as a specialist, their abilities should be assessed by a surgeon trained in the same area.
If they were employed pending the completion of a vetting process, they should be under direct supervision and not have to make independent clinical decisions.
"There is a defined process in place throughout the country that should really be followed for assessment," he said.