May 17

Harsh outcome in negligence claim?

A disabled girl, alleging medical negligence against two NHS trusts, has lost her claim in an interesting case which looks into treatments given to her mother during the girl’s birth.

Amy Jane Ludwig, the disabled girl, was represented by her mother, Della Louise Ludwig in court and took action against Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust and Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust because they did not identify a Group B Streptococcus infection in her mother when she gave birth.

Amy developed diplegic cerebral palsy, which affected her legs and her mobility and an MRI scan showed that she had brain damage which was responsible for the disability she was suffering from. She claimed that this was entirely due to the infection that her mother was carrying at the time of her birth. She said that there had been the loss of a high vaginal swab and also staff at the time had not identified and therefore treated the infection.

While, there may have been a duty of care owed by the trusts to Mrs Ludwig, the court ruled that it could not be established that the damage caused to Amy was as a direct result of the infection. It said that the probable cause could not be identified and therefore the claim had to fail.

Without knowing all the circumstances of the case it is difficult to give a fully informed opinion. However, does that not set the bar unrealistically high when considering medical negligence claims in general? It perhaps could not be fully established that the infection, or the failure to identify it at the time, was the certain cause of the brain damage, but surely it was a contributing factor. Your opinions would be most welcome.

More information

 

May 10

Errors in baby care

Official figures have confirmed that the NHS has set aside a total of £235.4m to pay compensation to those affected by errors which have led to some babies being left with brain damage.

The figures, which come from the NHS Litigation Authority, show that there are 60 claims in which staff had failed to spot that the new-born babies they were caring for had dangerously low blood sugar levels and in the past decade, in England alone, there have been 79 claims alleging harm to babies related to undetected or untreated hypoglycaemia which affects up to three of every 1,000 babies and which, if not treated, can have serious consequences.

The £235.4m set aside is intended to cover damages and legal fees but the figure is likely to rise further still due to annual sums to cover the child’s lifelong care needs. The largest amount so far paid out has been £7m which was awarded last year to the family of Louis Peers, following claims that staff at a Birmingham hospital had not intervened in the first few days of his life, even though he had not been feeding.

Peter Walsh, chief executive of the group Action Against Medical Accidents, says that the shortage of midwifes within the NHS is a major reason for the number of claims, while those who are on duty should be better trained in monitoring babies’ feeding and blood sugar levels in the first few days after birth.

Professor Cathy Warwick, general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, said that as well as addressing the shortage of midwives, new mothers should also be educated so that they can spot the signs of it developing. A spokesman at the Department of Health said: “Neonatal hypoglycaemia should never go undetected in a baby who is at risk. Where there are failures in care, these should be fully investigated to ensure lessons are learned to prevent mistakes happening again.”

More information

 

Apr 30

Investigating why so many sent home at night

Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS has vowed to find out exactly why so many people are being sent home from NHS hospitals in the middle of the night. Have you been a victim of this growing problem?

He made the pledge after freedom of information requests were made to all 170 NHS hospital trusts throughout the country and, of the 100 who responded, 239,233 patients had been sent home between the hours of 11pm and 6am during the last year alone. Throughout the country, the figure is likely to be closer to 400,000 patients a year and there is a concern that it is being done in an effort to free up hospital beds. The figures also revealed a disparity between trusts, with one in Derby sending home 8.7% of its patients during these hours whereas Newcastle Hospitals had a rate of under 1%.

Keogh said that he was concerned about the figures and said that patients should only be discharged when it is clinically appropriate, safe and convenient. The Patients Association also condemned the practice and worried that the problems could rise still further due to NHS budgets being cut. It seems incredible that so many patients are being sent home at such unsocial hours. Do you agree that it may be an even greater risk in the future because of cut backs? Let me know.

Link

Mar 19

Tragic case underlines issue of appendicitis in pregnancy

The case of Ronak Patel, who was left severely disabled at birth, has highlighted the critical issue of spotting appendicitis in a woman who is pregnant.

Mr Patel, who is now 29-years-old, had his brain deprived of oxygen at birth, leading to him having no use of his arms or legs and little speech or sight. Doctors at Northwick Park Hospital in Wembley did not spot that Ronak s mother, Smita Patel, had appendicitis and this led to the problems encountered when she delivered her baby.

The local NHS trust in Wembley has agreed to pay out 6m in compensation after failing to diagnose the problem, with the money being spent on 24-hour care for Mr Patel which he will need for the rest of his life.

Appendicitis in pregnancy is quite common and if not diagnosed can be fatal; up to four in 100 women will die with ruptured appendicitis in pregnancy, while a third of babies may be lost due to a delay in diagnosis and a resulting lack of treatment. Is there more that hospitals can do to diagnose appendicitis in women who are pregnant? This tragic case highlights the dangers when a hospital fails in its duty.

Mar 13

The pros and cons of having cosmetic surgery abroad

It’s perhaps not well known that some of those who choose to have cosmetic surgery decide to have it abroad rather than in the UK, but why?

Well one significant reason is money; a procedure that costs 10,000 in the UK may well be found for just half that amount in some other countries, so cost is undoubtedly a major attraction. Also, there is the chance to make it part of an overall positive experience. Some operators work it into a holiday, so you have the relaxing effect of time on the beach either side of the operation to help keep yourself in a relaxed frame of mind.

However, though there are possibly attractions in having treatment abroad, it is perhaps easier to find potential pitfalls. One most glaring example is of course the level of post-operative care you might expect to receive. What if there are complications once you arrive back in the UK? Once the surgery is booked and paid for it may well relatively rare to get a surgeon who will offer support and advice. So, those psychologically fragile may find that overseas treatment is not suitable for them.

Also, any analysis done while the patient is back in the UK and the surgeon is abroad is patently far from ideal. Any conversations would have to be done on the phone or by email and, for any problems the patient would have to use photographs rather than being able to show the surgeon herself. So, for many reasons, cosmetic surgery abroad is far from ideal.

Those still set on it however, should research it thoroughly, reading the small print and checking out the surgery and the particular surgeon if possible as well as potentially checking their insurance cover in the event that things do go wrong. Any other tips for those wanting to save money by having cosmetic surgery abroad? We d like to hear from you.

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/cosmetic-surgery-tourism-dangerous-195039626.html

Mar 07

Terrible ordeal for mother as ‘dead’ baby found alive

The terrible ordeal for a mother, who thought her baby had died, but was later found to be alive after all, is to lead to a medical negligence claim.

Rebecca Hidle gave birth to daughter Megan at Leicester Royal Infirmary in October 2006. She was born five weeks prematurely by emergency Caesarean section but the registrar on duty could not deliver her head and asked for assistance. Megan was eventually born after a specialist registrar enlarged the incision, but on delivery she was found to be floppy, had stopped breathing and there were no signs of life.

Thirteen minutes later, after all resuscitation attempts had failed, Megan was about to be declared dead when staff noticed that she was pink and gasping. She was transferred to the neonatal unit where she developed abnormal movements and needed ventilation, though she eventually recovered sufficiently to be allowed home. However, Megan suffered brain damage after being starved of oxygen, has cerebral palsy and is at risk of conditions such as epilepsy and scoliosis.

A High Court writ has been issued against University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust and, though the trust has admitted negligence, the two sides cannot agree a suitable compensation figure. Mrs Hidle is hoping for provisional damages as well as an order enabling her to return if her daughter s condition deteriorates.

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/02/15/mum-sues-nhs-for-300-000-after-her-baby-who-she-was-told-had-died-was-found-alive-rebecca-hidle-megan/

Video

Medical Negligence

Feb 07

Should the NHS pay for breast implants

An article last week highlighted the controversy that surrounds the PIP breast implants and in particular whether the NHS should have to pay for the actions of private cosmetic surgery companies.

It contrasts the action of Boots, on discovering there was a minor fault with one of its hot water bottles, with those of the companies involved and noted that the product recall was typical of most companies that had been affected in this way.

It’s important to note of course that there is a big difference between hot water bottles and breast implants, but there is a point to be made that, while Boots was responding to the concerns and acting appropriately, many of the cosmetic surgery firms had not and that it is unacceptable to hear them complain that they can’t afford to replace the implants.

Is this a stark example of the public sector taking all the risks while private companies carry on reaping the rewards? Such firms used the PIP implants because they were cheap and these are the same firms that are offering many women treatment, which perhaps they can’t afford, with the firm safe in the knowledge that, if it all goes wrong, the NHS will pay for the consequences.

It’s true that the scandal has brought the whole cosmetic surgery industry out into the spotlight and what we hear is the influential and authoritative voice of the British Association of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgeons and perhaps an even more noticeable silence from those at, what could be termed the murkier end of the industry. Has the scandal achieved some good in at least exposing them to some unwelcome attention? We’d appreciate your feedback on this issue.