HS Turku | A private doctor performed unnecessary eye surgeries and financed clients, says Valvira – This is how he explains his activities

HS Turku reported earlier on Monday that the owner and leading doctor of a private ophthalmology clinic in Turku has been preparing for his patients for years useless diagnoses.

This is evident from the decision of the health care supervisory authority Valvira dated December 11, 2023.

According to Valvira, it has mainly been glaucoma or eye pressure diagnoses. Based on the pointless diagnoses he made, the private doctor ordered his patients to undergo expensive examinations and unnecessary treatments. The doctor's motive has been suspected to be financial gain from the situation.

According to Valvira's decision, a private doctor may in the future only work as a doctor in a service relationship with public healthcare and even then only under supervision.

Valvira's decision also contains information on other official documents. Over the years, several damage reports have been made to the Patient Injury Center regarding the actions of a private doctor. The Regional Administrative Agency (Avi) has also repeatedly given the private doctor instructions and comments on the matter. Avi's decisions have been based on samples of several dozen patients and several complaints, the expertise of four different ophthalmology experts has been used to resolve them.

For example, Avi got acquainted with the materials of thirty patients who were under the care of private doctors. According to Avi's expert report, 25 of these patients did not have glaucoma. However, a private doctor had diagnosed 20 of them with glaucoma.

Kela had also informed Valvira that the private doctor would continue his professional activities that endanger patient safety despite the guidance he had received.

At issue is the Turun Silmäexpertit ophthalmology clinic. Valvira's decision concerns the person who acted as the owner of the company and the leading physician during the processing Minna Sandberg.

HS publishes the name of the doctor in the position of leader and owner of the company due to the exceptional seriousness of the abuse allegations and so that the news does not stigmatize other people working at the medical center. According to the medical center's own release, the other doctors and other staff are not involved in the matter in any way medically or legally.

According to the release, Sandberg also denies all the “deeply offensive accusations and false claims” directed at him and his activities, but does not want to comment on the matter beyond the release.

I told you about the case of the private doctor earlier Turku Sanomat.

Private doctor Sandberg has, however, provided Valvira with a 245-page explanation and plenty of appendices last year. In this reply, he denied all the allegations against him. He demanded that Valvira leave the handling of the control case alone and reminded that the restriction of practicing his profession would cause him permanent financial damage.

An extensive summary of Sandberg's lengthy response can be found in Valvira's final document. It appears that Sandberg considered the views of the expert doctors used by Valvira and Kela to be incorrect. In addition, he questioned the competence of the expert used by Valvira. Sandberg demanded that Valvira obtain the opinions of at least three ophthalmology specialists, in the selection of which he also demanded that he be consulted.

Sandberg also questioned the fact that Valvira even took her case into consideration. According to the doctor, Valvira's task is to deal only with such complaints where the patient is suspected to have died or been seriously injured as a result of a treatment error.

You're fake diagnoses and unnecessary treatment measures, Sandberg denied. He reminded that the medical community is divided on issues and there is no “one absolutely correct” diagnosis criterion related to glaucoma.

In the press release sent to the media from Sandberg's email address on Monday of this week, it was emphasized that it is a medical doctrinal dispute regarding the diagnosis of glaucoma. According to the release, it is “very strange and completely unreasonable that an ophthalmologist who is scientifically distinguished and quite respected and liked in his work with patients has been put under specific supervision with regard to glaucoma diagnostics.” The bulletin reminds that both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of glaucoma occur widely among ophthalmologists.

For Valvira last year, Sandberg described in detail the equipment he used to help diagnose glaucoma. He felt that diagnostics in many other places remained at a more rudimentary level than in his state-of-the-art company.

Sandberg also argued in its response that every patient evaluated by Valvira has had detectable findings suggestive of glaucoma. He found it problematic that at Tyks, the same patients have been studied with different research methods and different methods of analysis. Sandberg also defended his actions by saying that the public sector has different resources and thus a different threshold for treating patients than the private sector.

He also reminded that if the patient does not have glaucoma diagnosed in Tyks, it may be because the treatment of the disease had already started in his clinic.

In his explanation, Sandberg denied that he was seeking financial gain at the expense of his patients. He also denied that he exposed his patients to unnecessary and harmful research and treatment procedures.

Valvira obtained a new expert report after Sandberg's extensive and detailed explanations last year. That didn't turn things into Sandberg's favor.

According to the final conclusions of the new expert report, Sandberg's operations have been subject to repeated complaints, appeals and damage reports to the Patient Injury Center from 2015 until 2022. In addition to these, Kela's internal investigation has also shown repeated impropriety.

The new statement also states that Sandberg's actions have repeatedly caused patient safety risks. Patients have undergone unnecessary examinations and procedures and they have had to use medications unnecessarily, which have been expensive for them and which could have caused side effects. Examinations, treatments and procedures have also caused extra costs for society in terms of Kela compensations.

Sandberg also disputed the information of the new expert opinion and did not approve of the expert chosen by Valvira. He justified all the expert's accusations and reproaches as untrue and even incorrect.

Turku Silmäexperttie's private ophthalmology clinic is located in Turku next to Puutori. Picture: Jonna Rönkä / HS

Valvira decided to limit Sandberg's right to practice medicine. For the time being, he may work as a doctor only in a service relationship with a public sector unit. Even there, he may only work under the leadership and supervision of another professional.

According to Valvira, Sandberg's procedure must be considered so serious in terms of patient safety that it is necessary to interfere with his right to practice his profession. Mere administrative guidance or a written warning are not enough, because they had not led to a change in the past.

By operating in the public sector, Sandberg also has no financial interest in ordering unjustified examinations and procedures on patients.

Valvira the decision is valid for the time being. You can apply for the removal of the restriction from Valvira after the reason that caused the restriction has ceased. In its decision, Valvira estimates that in the case of Sandberg, it could mean a report obtained from the employer, which shows longer-term and appropriate performance in work tasks according to the restriction.

The press release sent to the media from Sandberg's email address states that Sandberg will no longer continue his work as a doctor at Turku Eye Experts. According to the release, he will not work as a doctor in the public sector either.

Sandberg says he plans to appeal the decision to the administrative court.

Valvira reminds that, according to the Act on Healthcare Professionals, the decision has been implemented immediately, despite Sandberg's possible appeal.