NHS trust to review 4,500 more breast cancer cases after failings
It has already established that hundreds of patients have come to harm during treatment in the breast unit at the County Durham and Darlington Foundation Trust (CDDFT)
Thousands more breast cancer cases are to be reviewed by an NHS trust after it was found women underwent unnecessary or excessive breast cancer surgery.
Listen to this article
Members of a support group for women who underwent unnecessary or excessive breast cancer surgery will attend a meeting where health trust officials will decide how far back cases will be reviewed.
It has already established that hundreds of patients have come to harm during treatment in the breast unit at the County Durham and Darlington Foundation Trust (CDDFT).
Some 20 women have been found to have undergone unnecessary mastectomies.
The trust has apologised and is using specialists from other hospitals to review cases to see if other women underwent unnecessary operations or had otherwise poor care.
An extraordinary trust board meeting will be held at Prospect House, Durham, on Thursday, where the scope of a Look Back Exercise will be set.
Read More: National Cancer Board reforms in drive to improve faltering outcomes for NHS patients
Read More: NHS U-turn gives breast cancer patients access to life-extending drug
Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google
Board papers show that the trust is recommended to back a review of cases going back as far as 2015, working back retrospectively one year at a time.
The board documents estimate that this option could take five years to review approximately 4,500 patients’ care.
Members of the Pink Justice Network, an online support group for women who have had breast cancer treatment from the trust, will attend the meeting.
Nadeen Lister, who runs the 150-strong group with Amelia Green, said members were calling for a public inquiry into what went wrong.
She told the Press Association: “When we started the group, nobody was talking about compensation, they just wanted justice for what has been done.”
The Look Back Exercise has cost the trust more than £500,000 this year, with staff checking back over records, medical experts reviewing cases and psychological help offered to patients affected.
Mrs Green added that the trust could avoid the expense of the Look Back Exercise “by backing our call for a public inquiry”.
Group member Rachel Gray, 41, from Sunderland, was “sick to the stomach” when she was told she had undergone an unnecessary mastectomy when she was 37.
She was under the care of Amir Bhatti, clinical lead for breast surgery at the trust at the time, and was told the only surgical option was a mastectomy.
It was only after she joined the Pink Justice Network and contacted the trust that she found out she should have been offered therapeutic mammoplasty, breast-conserving surgery that removes cancer while reshaping the breast.
She said: “I felt sick to the stomach when the trust told me I’d had my breast removed when it wasn’t needed.
“It’s absolutely appalling and unforgivable.
“They’ve made me go through so much, losing my breast and the impact that had on me, and then of course the reconstruction surgery.
“I wasn’t given any choice at all. I was simply told I needed a mastectomy.”
She added: “I think every woman’s treatment should be investigated now.
“Everybody deserves answers.
“There may be many women who have since passed away who were badly let down and harmed.
“Their loved ones deserve to know. We all deserve answers as to how and why this happened.”
Hayley Collinson, of Hudgell Solicitors – which represents many patients affected, said: “Given the scale of harm revealed so far, we can’t see how the Trust board can come to any other decision than to extend this lookback investigation given the findings of the first batch of cases to have been reviewed, and the high percentage of harm being identified.
“The reality is that any woman who had breast cancer treatment at this Trust from 2015 onwards is now going to be questioning whether their treatment was appropriate and if they were actually harmed.”