A Hunter region woman faced a critical five-month delay in being notified of a positive bowel screening test, a situation that culminated in a diagnosis of stage two bowel cancer.
A Critical Communication Failure
The woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, recorded a positive result on a bowel screening test in October last year. She was not informed of this crucial finding until a routine visit to her general practitioner for an unrelated matter in late February this year.
During that February appointment, the GP reportedly told her, "you've got two positive results from your bowel test last year." When the patient expressed surprise, stating "I thought you'd ring me," the GP allegedly responded that it was the patient's responsibility to call and follow up on results.
Swift Action After the Delay
Upon finally learning the result, the woman underwent a colonoscopy the following week. The procedure confirmed the presence of bowel cancer. She subsequently had surgery for the stage two cancer and has since recovered.
It is important to note that the screening was conducted through a private GP clinic, not via the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, which automatically mails kits to eligible Australians aged 50 and over every two years.
"Luckily I had the best outcome," the woman said. "My concern is, a lot of people are not aware that they may have to ring up and get results. There seems to be a huge gap in communication between some surgeries and their patients."
Medical and Legal Duty of Care
Dr Max Mollenkopf, the Hunter representative for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, provided clear guidance on the standard of care. He stated that clinicians who order tests have a medical and legal responsibility to follow up on significant results.
"If someone has a clinically significant result, then you have an obligation as a practitioner to try to inform the patient of that result," Dr Mollenkopf explained. "You can't tell a patient it's on them. That's one that is always coming back to you."
He outlined the standard protocol: practices should attempt to contact a patient on three separate occasions for a significant result. If this fails, a registered letter must be sent to their last known address.
Dr Mollenkopf emphasised that while GPs might advise patients to follow up, the ultimate obligation rests with the practice. He described a scenario where a significant result is not actively pursued as "extremely rare" and more likely an aberration than a systemic failure, given that results handling procedures are part of practice accreditation.
The Hunter woman's experience serves as a stark reminder for all patients to proactively inquire about test results, while simultaneously highlighting the non-negotiable duty of care held by medical professionals.
