“The treatment of this patient and his family was not in accordance with the principles of administrative fairness.”
Published Apr 17, 2025 • Last updated 2 hours ago • 2 minute read
You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.
File photo of a health-care worker in a health centre hallway.Photo by Greg Pender /Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Article content
A Saskatchewan man’s perspective was not sought by the provincial health authority after a followup surgery to remove a chunk of surgical equipment left in his lung.
That’s according to the ombudsman’s annual report tabled on Thursday, giving an overview of the incident while highlighting measures the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) has since adopted after the man’s family complained.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.
Get exclusive access to the Regina Leader-Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.
Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.
Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.
Get exclusive access to the Regina Leader-Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.
Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.
Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Enjoy additional articles per month.
Get email updates from your favourite authors.
THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments
Enjoy additional articles per month
Get email updates from your favourite authors
Sign In or Create an Account
or
Article content
According to the report, the man went in for surgery to treat lung cancer. After the initial surgery, it was determined that a “piece of equipment” approximately one centimetre in size “broke off in his lung,” read the report, which added that a followup surgery to remove it resulted in the man losing “a significant portion” of his lung.
“He was never the same after these procedures, struggling to manage both his health and household,” read the report.
A critical incident review (CIR) was conducted by the SHA but at no time was the patient asked for his perspective, nor was he offered any information on the outcome of the review.
A “critical incident” is defined in part as “a serious adverse health event” while receiving care at a provincial centre. The accidental incident is further described as serious and undesired — resulting in death, disability, harm, an unexpected stay in a health centre, etc. — and does not stem from a patient’s underlying health issues.
Headline News
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Headline News will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
Article content
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Months later, the man did receive a draft letter related to the CIR, but it contained little information. More than a year later, the man received a formal letter about the review. Over that timeline, the ombudsman reported, “the family had lost trust in the SHA.”
Before the family could report this experience to the provincial ombudsman, the man passed away.
An investigation found that the SHA did not report the incident within 60 days to the Ministry of Health, as is mandated by legislation. The report also noted a variance across the province in how CIRs are conducted.
“The treatment of this patient and his family was not in accordance with the principles of administrative fairness,” read the report.
In response, the SHA has brought in new guidelines, reporting templates, disclosure policy, and new work standards for CIRs.
A letter of apology was given to the man’s family, outlining what was done and what will be done going forward. The SHA said it will also “embed the principles of patient and family centred care” into new CIRs and develop a mechanism to make sure legislative timelines are met.
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Recommended from Editorial
Social Services, Corrections largest sources of complaints to Sask. ombudsman
Sask. ombudsman probing inmate concerns about Pine Grove women’s jail
alsalloum@postmedia.com
The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe.
With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark leaderpost.com and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.