Curiouser and curiouser..... sharing the skeletons

Image from here

An independent investigation is not always the most intuitive thing to do when a problem arises. The management of an organization will always seek to retain control of the proceedings so that the damage can be contained should any wrong doing be uncovered. Yet we all know that a less than independent investigation will in the end prove to be the least beneficial for the organization in the long run.

A number of recent incidents locally highlight the need for external and independent invistigations or audits.

Late last year, an IVF mistake occured in Thomson Medical Centre. In response, the Ministry of Health held its own investigation rather than to leave it to the TMC to uncover and report its own lapses.

More recently, an accident occured in the Singapore Air Force. Apparent a technician ruptured his liver during an induction exercise. The internal Board of Inquiry, disclaimed any association with the activities during the induction. It was only after the coroner made its findings that the BOI backtracked and agreed to consider that the ruptured liver could have been related to the tunnel crawl during the induction activities.

Now there are allegations of publication fraud and self-plagiarisms at the NUS. One wonders if the NUS sees it as in their interest to keep the investigation 'in house' and secret. Should it not be in everybody's (including NUS's interest), to have an external party audit whatever happened? This is especially as senior members of the faculty are associated with the allegations. Even if the senior members are innocent of any wrongdoing, the perception that the investigations are less than independent is damaging to the credibility of the NUS.

Instead, there is this very bizarre situation where the lead investigator is a Director of Research Admin, in the Office of the Deputy President (Research&Technology) while his boss himself is the subject of certain allegations of self-plagiarism and is associated with two of the Melendez list of publications.

Curiouser and curiouser.

IVF errors, or negligence?

So it has now been revealed that not only the Thomson Medical Centre was sloppy, but the Gleneagles IVF and the O&G Partners Fertility also did not follow procedures. They did not comply with procedures, and did not provide for a second operator to counter-check.

I don't know..... to my simple mole-mind, this doesn't really qualify for a procedural lapse, or human error. Smacks of negligence to me.

Seems to me that we haven't taken such clinic audits and licensing seriously enough.

IVF "lapses"

I must say I was disappointed that the MOH could not bring itself to go beyond just identifying "lapses" as being the causes of the error. Though it's kinda expected. It doesn;t say very much. We all know that accidents are due to lapses.

What we want really to find out is why those lapses occured. Was there a systemic problem that increased likelihood of lapses. Were the quality assurance procedures adequate? Were there previous audit findings that were not remedied? Were weaknesses in the system identified before but left unattended to for too long?

Human error can often be the consequence of systemic failures.

Investigating aviation errors and IVF mistakes - a fair comparison?

Minister of Health Khaw Boon Wan made an interesting reference to the investigation of aviation errors while commenting or the recent IVF mistake which occurred at the Thomson Medical Centre.

He said: "Like the health sector, the aviation sector used to approach safety and errors through a largely fault-finding approach. When a plane crashed or hit a problem, the first question was to nail down the culprit: who was responsible, was the pilot at fault, was the engineer negligent etc? This used to be their approach a decade or two ago.

But they have since moved away from that approach. Instead, they took a system approach. Each time an adverse event occurs, they will conduct an objective and thorough investigation, not to witch hunt, but to identify the causes, especially if there are systemic flaws. Because they moved away from fault-finding, everyone was open in their comments, resulting in a speedy and accurate assessment of the true situation. Under the previous approach, the tendency was to protect one’s interest, resulting sometimes in cover-ups and the truth became elusive."

It's a very enlightened approach, and one to be applauded, although at some point in time there needs to be some accountability and someone has to take responsibility for not putting in place adequate measures to prevent errors. The MOM comes in hard for employers who put their workers in jeopardy by being negligent in not ensuring adequate workplace safety. In our research laboratories, the principle investigator faces a possible jailable outcome should lab safety measures be violated, or he has been negligent. Should not we expect the same rigour when medical professionals are negligent in situations such as this?

But I digress. The real purpose of this post is to explore the appropriateness or lack of, in the comparison with the investigation of aviation errors.

Avoidance of fault finding and cover-ups are two faces of the same coin. Often breakdowns in the integrity of a system/process extends beyond the party holding the smoking gun. If an error occurs in the regulatory functions, this would be less likely to be flagged out if the investigating team comes from the regulators themselves. In the investigation of aviation errors, to avoid this conflict of interests, an independent body forms the investigating team. Only thus, can the true extent of errors be discovered. If the investigating team is formed by the regulator, it is more than likely that a "fault" will be found only in the party in possession of the smoking gun.

In this instance of the IVF error, the investigating team is the Ministry of Health team. Yet it is the Ministry of Health which audits and regulates this industry. How can the Ministry then identify weaknesses in its own audit/regulatory systems covering the IVF facilities which allowed high likelihood of errors such as this to be committed? This is uncertain.

Should we not require some sort of pre-implantation diagnosis of paternity to be documented as validation of the integrity of the process before the embryo is implanted? Doing so will at least ensure that at the very least, there are no costly mistakes beyond the irreversible step of implantation.

Perhaps the Ministry of Health could consider releasing the last audit findings of Thomson Medical Centre so that the public can gauge if the audit was done with the stringency we expect, and/or the facility failed to act of recommendations.

As the Minister pointed out, this should not be to find fault but to enable everyone to correct all the deficiencies of the system. Following which, we can move on.

Thomson Medical Centre - suspension of assisted reproduction activities

Well done, MOH!! The Thomson Medical Centre has been whacked with a suspension following the IVF mix-up. Iwould have prefered that the suspension had been immediate upon news of the mistake, but better late than never.

What is further required is a full and proper audit of all IVF facilities to ensure that procedures are not only in place, but that centres are in full compliance of procedures. In addition, regular annual audits should be implemented, perhaps with a way to monitor outcomes... for example routine genetic screening of babies to ensure babies are who the centres say they are.

Singapore's "first" IVF mix-up?

In the process of being taken over by billionaire Peter Lim, the Thomson Medical Centre gets this unexpected bombshell - a dreaded mix-up in the IVF procesure where the mother's egg had been apparently fertilized by the wrong sperms!

Previous posts had highlighted this error and asked for clarity on this issue with respect to the local situation. Now this dreaded error has been reported in Singapore. It is no comfort to say that the risk is very low. A single accident is one too many already. Patients deserve better.

There needs to be more public assurances about the practices procedures and processes in place that will prevent accidents of this sort.

I think a public 'fessing up of what actually went wrong is needed. Dr Cheng LC of Thomson Medical Centre was quoted to have said: ... the centre's operating procedures "meet all regulatory requirements, and are of the highest international standards".

All very vague. Just what are these regulatory requirements? And are they adequate?

The Ministry of Health should tell us how the various IVF units fare in terms of the procedures and procedural compliance. Or are they never ever audited?

IVF mistakes - what is the extent of the problem in Singapore?

CNN reported recently of an IVF mistake occuring in an Ohio clinic in the US, where an embryo was wrongly implanted into a woman. This is not an isolated problem as such mistakes have been increasingly reported. Just last month, the BBC reported on a whistle blower embryologist Ms Pavlovic who highlighted neglected procedural safeguards at the Guys and St Thomas's hospitals. As she had detected the mistakes by accident, she queried if there had been other mistakes that have gone undetected and unreported.

We really don't know how many such errors have occurred in Singapore (see previous post). None have ever been reported to my knowledge, but this silence does not necessarily mean we are error free. Perhaps many have just not been detected.

But what can we do about it? For one thing, IVF clinics have to be more stringent in their procedural disciplines. How do embryos get labeled and tracked? Are we still depending on handwritten scribbled information of sample labels, or can we move on to electronic tagging as one major clinic in the UK has done. With IVF, even one error is one error too many.

As a footnote, I would welcome any reports or IVF errors in Singapore if you are aware of any such problems. Just drop me a note. You don't have to name names or identify clinics if you are not comfortable.

IVF blunders - Time for a syscheck, Singapore?

Today's Straits Times, prompted by a recent IVF blunder in an UK fertility clinic, carried a report of the rather sloppy processes at such clinics. A recent Daily Mail report can accessed here.

I must say I haven't really thought much about this issue before, but was rather horrified at how frequent mistakes were. The ST report cited a Telegraph report alluding to as much as a staggering 40 mistakes per 10,000 cycles in 2006-07 (up from 15/10,000 in 2003-04). The Daily Mail refers to a report due soon showing 200 such 'serious mistakes' and 'near misses' this year. (The British Fertility Society however without citing figures, reassures that these errors are 'extremely rare'.

I am horrified.

An MOH report 2004/5 on IVF can be found here. In 2002 there were 1569 IVF treatments. Todate we must have done way beyond 10,000 treatments, but I can't find any data on IVF errors in Singapore. Are we that error free? Or have the errors been swept under the carpet somehow?

MOH should enlighten us on how IVF errors are being monitored, or is it that no one wants to know or tell?