The Municipal State Attorney's Office has filed an indictment against a doctor from the University Hospital Centre Sestre milosrdnice (Mercy Sisters), charging her with negligent treatment and causing particularly serious bodily harm through negligence. The prosecution is seeking a sentence of one year in prison. The case concerns a patient who was diagnosed with stomach cancer at the end of 2023, after which she underwent surgery at the University Hospital Centre Zagreb.
According to the indictment, the doctor analysed a biopsy sample and incorrectly diagnosed gastric adenocarcinoma, failing to perform additional immunohistochemical tests that could have determined the actual type of tumour. In the report, she stated that it was gastric adenocarcinoma, although it was a grade 2 neuroendocrine tumour. Based on this finding, the patient was referred for surgery, having sought medical help due to severe stomach pain. After a gastroscopy, a tissue sample was taken for analysis, and the patient's husband, who also works at the University Hospital Centre Sestre milosrdnice, contacted the doctor who was to prepare the report. The patient was told she had gastric adenocarcinoma and that urgent surgery was required.
During the procedure, the patient's entire stomach, lymph nodes, omentum, appendix and gallbladder were removed. It was subsequently established that she did not suffer from cancer, but from a benign neuroendocrine tumour, which in her case did not require such a surgical intervention. Subsequent analysis of the removed stomach showed that she did not have adenocarcinoma, but a small benign neuroendocrine tumour. Internal monitoring at the University Hospital Centre Sestre milosrdnice confirmed a professional error.
The surgeon who performed the procedure stated that he could not feel the tumour during the operation, but decided to continue the surgery due to the pathohistological finding indicating cancer. He also asserted that the procedure was carried out according to professional standards and in agreement with the patient. The accused doctor stated in her defence that she had conducted additional tests, specifically that she participated in the biopsy analysis and that five additional testing methods were performed. She believes that other doctors before the operation should have checked whether all necessary diagnostic work-up was completed, meaning that doctors should have consulted before the operation to verify if the diagnostic work-up was finished. She also claimed that the finding on the day of the operation was not yet final, highlighted that a repeat biopsy and additional medical procedures should have been considered, stated that it cannot be said with certainty that the patient did not have cancer, and mentioned as a possibility that the tumour was removed during the biopsy and that multiple types of tumours can exist in one organ.
Court experts concluded that a professional error was made in establishing the diagnosis due to the absence of additional tests. Forensic medical experts concluded that a professional error was made in preparing the initial pathohistological report and that additional immunohistochemical markers necessary to confirm the diagnosis and distinguish between the two types of tumours were not applied. The expert assessment determined serious, permanent consequences for the patient, who has an 80 per cent disability and now has 100 per cent bodily injury. The consequences include digestive disorders, dumping syndrome, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, significant loss of body weight, reflux and psychological distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
