Markets 
Weather 
Victoria’s largest private hospital has launched a review after “deeply confronting” allegations one of its gynaecologists performed unnecessary surgeries on women with endometriosis, including removing their ovaries.
Epworth HealthCare chief executive Professor Andrew Stripp has also warned that patient safety was being put at risk by strict confidentiality laws surrounding doctors under investigation by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).
This masthead revealed last week that former Epworth gynaecologist Dr Simon Gordon was being investigated by AHPRA over allegations he performed unnecessary surgery on women to treat endometriosis, including removing their ovaries, despite no clinical evidence justifying these procedures.
Gordon has denied the allegations and said he only performed surgery to treat endometriosis when he was “absolutely convinced” it was in a patient’s best interests.
This masthead does not suggest the complaints are true, only that they have been made.
Visiting medical officers are required to tell the Epworth if they are under investigation as part of their accreditation with the hospital.
But Stripp said concerns about the surgeon were not raised with senior management until October. This was many months after AHPRA began its investigation.
When asked why he did not notify the hospital that he was being investigated by AHPRA, Gordon said the watchdog had not requested a response from him until after he retired.
Gordon retired in November, closing his East Melbourne clinic and surrendering his medical registration.
“As far as I am aware, there are no findings from any investigation at this time,” he said.
“I surrendered my registration because I was no longer practising.”
On Friday, Stripp wrote to AHPRA chief executive Justin Untersteiner to call for more consistent and transparent information sharing between regulators and hospitals when a practitioner is under investigation.
“The absence of timely notification to our hospitals creates a material gap in the safety system,” he said.
“It limits our ability to manage risk, to support practitioners appropriately, and to implement proportionate safeguards for patients. It can also result in parallel systems operating without sufficient visibility of one another despite a shared objective of protecting patient safety.”
Under national law, employers are required to notify AHPRA if they believe a health practitioner has engaged in professional misconduct.
But under this same legislation, AHPRA is generally restricted from notifying health services about active investigations involving their own staff. This is designed to ensure procedural fairness and the integrity of the investigation.
Stripp believes that changes are needed to improve patient safety.
“[T]here may be options to improve communication pathways, clarify the circumstances in which disclosure is permissible, and reduce the likelihood that a hospital remains unaware of a matter that may be relevant to patient safety,” he wrote in the letter to Untersteiner.
He said the hospital would commission an independent review of the Epworth’s clinical governance as part of “our ongoing commitment to continuous improvement and patient safety”.
“If improvements are identified, we will implement them,” he said.
He apologised to patients who felt unheard or let down.
“These issues are deeply confronting. They speak to matters of pain, trust and confidence in healthcare.”
An AHPRA spokesperson would not comment on Gordon’s case specifically because it was under investigation, but said: “Public safety is our priority. Where AHPRA takes action because a registered practitioner poses an immediate risk to the public, we always notify employers.
“In investigating notifications, we must strike a balance between protecting the public from immediate risks, and our duty of fairness and confidentiality to the practitioner we are investigating. Employers are required to notify AHPRA if they have a concern about a practitioner’s health, performance or conduct. That’s a mandatory reporting requirement under the national law.”
In a statement last week, Gordon said he had always acted ethically and responsibly.
“For generations, the pain suffered by women was ignored, downplayed and untreated,” he said. “My concern was to try and alleviate pain and restore quality of life for female patients, a cohort once neglected and dismissed.”
He said the vast majority of his patients were referred to him after initial care with a primary gynaecologist and most already had a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of endometriosis.
According to Gordon, most of the surgeries he performed relieved or eliminated his patient’s pain.
Maurice Blackburn has received 15 inquiries from women who have concerns about the treatment provided by Gordon.
“It has invariably involved issuing very aggressive treatment for endometriosis, including the removal of ovaries and in a few extreme cases, hysterectomy,” said the firm’s principal lawyer, Tom Ballantyne.
The AHPRA investigation into Gordon coincides with broader debate about the effectiveness of treatments for endometriosis.
The painful, inflammatory condition is characterised by tissue similar to the lining of the uterus growing on other organs.
Some medical experts are warning that a surge in media attention on endometriosis – following decades of clinical neglect – is driving an increase in surgeries not supported by robust evidence.
The College of Anaesthetists Faculty of Pain Medicine says the surgical treatment of endometrial lesions has not been shown to reliably improve pain and disability outcomes.
According to government data, the frequency of surgical procedures to treat the condition nearly doubled between 2016 and 2023.
Obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Vinay Rane said most women with endometriosis wait close to 10 years for a diagnosis, often putting up with excruciating pain.
He said laparoscopy was a minimally invasive surgery that allowed for a validation of symptoms, as well as treatment. He said it was also valuable for ruling out endometriosis.
“In medicine, ruling something out is often as important as ruling it in,” he said.
“We do not accuse doctors of unnecessary investigation when a chest X-ray does not reveal lung cancer, or when a brain scan excludes a tumour. Those tests still provide reassurance, direction and relief.”
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.
Henrietta Cook is a senior reporter covering health for The Age. Henrietta joined The Age in 2012 and has previously covered state politics, education and consumer affairs.Connect via X, Facebook or email.
Liam Mannix is The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald’s national science reporter.Connect via X or email.From our partners
Read the full article here
