The A/Prof. Andrew J. Brooks, Urologist, and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission story.
Fact 1: After Dr Chris Grant, GP, had referred one of our readers to Dr Brooks for help with his frequency problem, (he was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet, which made it difficult to get a good night’s sleep, a problem common amongst seniors,) and after he’d had his first consultation with him on 5 Aug.2014, Brooks put in writing, amongst other things,”He has had no response to oral agents over several years.” This was to be the first of what were to be many of Brook’s fairy tales – seeing his GP and then Brooks was the first thing our reader had ever done about his frequency problem.
Fact 2: Brooks explanation to our reader was that the cause of his frequency problem was that his bladder had become muscular and therefore small, having a capacity of only about 200 mls, from years of having to force urine past partial blockages in his urinary tract, and that if he had the operation he recommended, called a TURP, in which the partial blockages would be removed, his bladder would be back to normal comparatively quickly, and he would no longer have the frequency problem. On 9 Sep.2014, he confirmed in writing what he’d previously told him – “it can take up to 6 months to resolve. The majority of the resolution occurs occurs within the first 3 months.”
Fact 3: Trusting his GP, Dr Chris Grant, and Brooks, our reader underwent the TURP, on 13 August, 2014.
Fact 4: Our reader was therefor subject to an operation under a full anaesthetic, which always has his risks.
Fact 5: Following the operation, our reader spent 2 uncomfortable days in hospital with tubes and so on sticking in an out of him everywhere.
Fact 6: Our reader was out of pocket for more than $6,000, even after rebates from Medicare, for Brooks’ fee of $3,200 for less than an hours work and for hospital charges. He was eligible to have his operation in a Government hospital at no cost, but Brooks told him that this would involve a delay of more than 12 months, which may or may not have been true – on Brooks record, as our reader says he subsequently found out, he was not to be trusted in anything he said.
Fact 7: Even after the above, our reader still had the frequency problem exactly the same, he’d not been helped in any way, as Brooks, himself, admitted in writing! On 9 Sep.2014, he put in writing, “He still has significant frequency,” and on 18 Nov.2014, “Unfortunately the frequency ….is not resolved.” He still had the frequency problem exactly the same even years later.
Fact 8: And, as a consequence of having undergone the TURP, he was DAMAGED FOR LIFE in a highly personal way, it didn’t happen sometimes, it always happened, and couldn’t be reversed – he was and is, deprived of the considerable pleasure, (as every male would understand,) that comes from his semen being ejected through his penis, – his semen just goes up into his bladder.
Fact 9: As a possible, almost certain, explanation of why Brooks’ treatment had failed completely, other urologists have indicated that when our reader first saw Brooks, it was likely that his bladder wasn’t small at all, that it was of a relatively normal size, but it was weak, too weak to empty properly, so it was taking shorter and shorter amounts of time before it was full again, and that this was the cause of his frequency problem. And that nothing could be done about weak bladders. In other words, Brooks’ treatment was NEVER going to work! On this explanation, it was likely that Brooks claim that it was small was simply made to justify the treatment he recommended, which involved him in getting $3,200 for less than an hours work! Brooks’ explanation for the complete failure was that, “Unfortunately the frequency and urgency is not resolved. This is due to the altered bladder wall compliance and loss of functional volume that occurs and occasionally does not remit following relief of the outflow obstruction,” which he put in writing on 18 Nov. 2o14, and which appears to be pure gobbledegook.
Fact 10: Brooks has ignored at least 20 requests from our reader for copies of anything that might substantiate his claim that his bladder was small – perhaps none exists.
Fact 11: Brooks is breaking the law by not providing our reader with anything that might substantiate his claim that his bladder was small.
Fact 12: The help of the NSW Privacy Commissioner we even enlisted to get Brooks to provide copies of anything that might substantiate his claim that our reader’s bladder was small, but Brooks even took no notice of her – not that she seemed to particularly care.
Fact 13: On 9 Sep. 2oi4, Brooks put in writing, “He has had a significant improvement in flow rate since undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate.” More Brooks fairy tales? How could he know this without physical inspections – and there had been no physical inspections. And what if there HAD been a significant improvement in flow rate, if our reader hadn’t been helped in any way with what he’d been referred to Brooks for. And our reader hadn’t told him that this signifiant improvement had occurred – mainly because he didn’t know himself whether it had or not. It’s as though, even though he hadn’t helped our reader in any way, Brooks still expected to get some brownie points for this achievement.
Fact 14: On 9 Sep. 2oi4, Brooks put in writing, “He still has significant frequency AND URGENCY” – this was the first time Brooks had talked about our reader having an urgency problem, which our reader says he never had, and has never had, at any stage. What is to be thought about doctors who start talking about problems they allege their patients have, which their patients has never mentioned and have never had???
Fact 15: On 9 Sep. 2oi4, Brooks also put in writing that our reader had “a functional volume of approximately 250 mls.” Another Brooks fairly tale? How could he say that when there’d been no physical examination. And do bladders ever increase in capacity by 500 mls in 27 days? But the whole basis of his treatment on 13 August 2013, only 27 days before, was that his bladder then only had a capacity of 200 mls.
Fact 16: On 18 Nov. 2014, Brooks put in writing the same old stuff – “He had a marked improvement in flow rate following my transurethral resection performed in May of this year.” (it was actually August.) Again with no physical examination being carried out. And again, “Unfortunately the frequency and urgency is not resolved.” again referring to an “urgency’ problem that his patient had never had.
Fact 17: In the two days our reader spent in hospital, he was in a room with another of of Brooks’ patients, and in those two days, Brooks only visited the two of them once, for a total time of two minutes – which was the total of Brooks’ aftercare for the two of them!
Fact 18: On 18 Nov. 2014, Brooks put in writing, “I have prescribed Oxytrol patches and I will review him in two months to check on his progress.” But after our reader had gone to the expense of getting the Oxytrol patches and started applying them, he happened to Google what Oxytrol patches were for, and the results indicated that he didn’t have any of the problems they were supposed to treat – so he threw them in the trash. Again Brooks being a waste of time and money.
Fact 18: Brooks had always claimed that if our reader’s bladder was increased in it’s capacity to a more normal size, something which he had indicated his treatment would achieve – but when our reader consulted another Urologist in April 2015, some 8 months after he’d had Brooks’ treatment, this other Urologist indicated that it then WAS of a more normal size, he showed our reader graphs and everything to confirm this, BUT, HE STILL HAD THE FREQUENCY PROBLEM!!!. This, together with Brooks’s absolute refusal to provide copies of anything that might indicate that our reader’s bladder was small back in August, 2014, would almost certainly indicate that his bladder was always of a more normal size, and that his claims that it was small, on which everything was based, was a lie.
Fact 19: Commissioner Sue Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, are, at present, considering a complaint our reader has lodged with them about Brooks, based on the above facts. And we know exactly what will happen – Brooks will say, “I warned him he’d be damaged for life, AND that there was a 20% chance he wouldn’t be helped in any way, but, although I’ve got nothing in writing confirming this, he said that if there was a chance he would no longer have to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet, he didn’t care,” and Dawson and her people will believe him, and tell our reader he has no basis to complain, the result of which being that Brooks will feel free to keep doing what he’s no doubt been doing doing for years – getting his greedy hands on his $3,200 fees for less than an hour’s work, without ever caring in any way about the consequences for his patients of the treatments he’s been recommending and carrying out, and with absolutely no concerns that any of his patients might lodge any complaints about him. Perhaps other Urologists will start joining him, or already have?