The incidents occurred in 2019 and 2021. In May, IVO issued its decision. "The deficiencies in question are to be considered serious from a patient safety perspective," the decision states.
It was just over two years ago that The Health and Social Care Inspectorate (Inspektionen för vård och omsorg, IVO for short) began an investigation into the doctor's professional practice. Since then, IVO has reviewed Lex Maria reports the doctor has been involved in. The authority issued its decision in May of this year, stating that the doctor failed in their medical care in two patient cases.
"The deficiencies in question are to be regarded as serious from a patient safety perspective," the decision states.
One case involves a child who got a piece of plastic stuck in their throat. The decision notes that the child showed signs of airway obstruction. An X-ray however, did not initially show any clear signs that the patient had swallowed something. The patient had to wait for surgery. The doctor instead prioritized doing surgery on a forearm fracture.
This posed a risk to the patient, who was at risk of total airway obstruction, according to IVO.
During the patient's transport to surgery, the child had a coughing fit. The doctor responsible was not present, and the nurse on site described the incident as "very unpleasant".
The doctor had left the patient, taking a shortcut to check in on another department. IVO criticizes this, stating it happened "without ensuring that the right competence and equipment were immediately available," according to the decision.
The plastic piece was quickly removed during surgery. However, IVO believes that the doctor "did not prioritize the patient sufficiently and did not handle the patient in accordance with science and experience given his responsibility."
In a statement, the doctor expresses that he "regrets the lack of communication and understands that the responsibility lay with him."
The other incident occurred in 2021. A severely ill and unconscious patient was being treated in emergency care. In this case, too, the doctor is criticized for not immediately securing the patient's airway. Other colleagues later suspected that the patient had sepsis. Despite being informed that the patient's condition was worsening, the doctor chose to prioritize other non-urgent surgeries.
"Overall, the handling of the patient was delayed, and the patient later died in the hospital," IVO writes in the decision.
The doctor states in his response to IVO that he chose to wait to intubate the patient because the pressure on several wards was high and that the decision was made considering the existing circumstances. The patient was also treated in consultation with another department. He believes that: "They did the best they could under the circumstances," according to his statement to IVO.
IVO concludes that the doctor failed in his medical care and acted contrary to science and proven experience in these two patient cases.
The authority does not direct any other criticism towards the doctor's professional practice. In the decision, IVO emphasizes that several years have passed since the last incident occurred. The doctor has not been involved in any further incidents since then.
IVO concludes that there are no grounds to make a report for revocation or probation to the Medical Responsibility Board.
IVO criticizes a doctor at Skellefteå Hospital. After an investigation, they concluded that the doctor failed in his medical management in two patient cases.
Norran has sought comments from the doctor and several department heads.
The doctor's current manager declined an interview but states that she continues to have confidence in the doctor.
"The IVO's decision concerns an individual personnel matter. We cannot comment on the specific cases. We always take IVO's identified deficiencies seriously. We will handle the matter and take necessary actions to ensure safe and secure care," she writes in an email.