A teenager was told by doctors she had a sexually-transmitted infection - only to later find out she had cervical cancer.
Hairdresser Jessica Bradford, 18, feared she had cervical cancer after looking up her symptoms online - but her doctors said she was too young.
But tests showed she had the disease - and she has been told she will never have children due to the radiotherapy treatment she is receiving.
Her mother Julie, 42, said: 'Jessica had some bleeding and other symptoms so she went to see the doctor straight away.
'At first they thought it was thrush and gave antibiotics, then they said it was a bacterial infection.
'After that they thought it was a sexually transmitted disease.
'She went back to the doctors about five times. They thought it couldn't be cervical cancer because of her age.'
But after a series of tests, scans and biopsies doctors confirmed the teenager's worst fears.
Jessica is one of the youngest women in Britain to be diagnosed with cervical cancer - women are not normally scanned for it until they are at least 20.
But Jessica and her mum, also a hairdresser, are now campaigning for the age to be lowered in the hope that other teenagers could be diagnosed early.
Brave Jessica is juggling a college hairdressing course with her cancer treatment at a specialist hospital.
She is doing well but was left heartbroken when doctors said the treatment had left her infertile.
Mum-of-three Julie said: 'She has been so upset about that because she loves children.
'But having radiotherapy destroys the womb so it has completely ended her chances of having children.'
Jessica is continuing to go to hairdressing college during her five-week course of radiotherapy and chemotherapy at Velindre Hospital in Cardiff.
Julie said: 'Jessica is strong minded and she is positive. I am really proud of her.'
Jessica said: 'I am determined to get through this, finish my studies and open up my own hair salon.
"But my other goal is to raise awareness about the importance of spotting symptoms and going to see a doctor early. I also think they should reduce the age for smear tests to 18.'
'My advice is just go to see a doctor soon as you get the symptoms and don't stop until they give you a definite answer.'
For more information on cervical cancer please click here
This article is courtesy from The Daily Mail.
Regularly updated blog featuring news, articles and information relating to clinical/medical negligence.
Wednesday, 30 April 2014
Monday, 28 April 2014
Thousands die of thirst and poor care in NHS
At least 1,000 hospital patients are dying needlessly each month from dehydration and poor care by doctors and nurses, according to an NHS study.
The deaths from acute kidney injury could be prevented by simple steps such as nurses ensuring patients have enough to drink and doctors reviewing their medication, the researchers say.
Between 15,000 and 40,000 patients die annually because hospital staff fail to diagnose the treatable kidney problem, a figure that dwarfs the death toll from superbugs like MRSA.
The report comes less than a year after the NHS watchdog NICE was forced to issue guidelines on giving patients water after it found that 42,000 deaths a year could be avoided if staff ensured the sick were hydrated.
It highlighted how old and vulnerable patients can be left on wards without fluids, quickly becoming too weak from dehydration to request a drink from nurses, which hastens their deterioration.
The latest research said the condition, often called “the silent killer” because it goes unnoticed by medical staff, may affect as many as one in seven hospital patients and costs the NHS £1 billion a year.
The infection causes a loss of kidney function and can develop very quickly. It can occur in people already ill from conditions such as heart failure or diabetes, and those admitted to hospital with infections.
It can also develop after major surgery, such as some kinds of heart surgery, because the kidneys can be deprived of normal blood flow during the procedure. Severe dehydration is one of the main causes of the condition.
“Many of the failings identiļ¬ed in the report related to basic medical care, such as checking of electrolytes, performance of physiological observations and adequate senior review,” the researchers found.
The condition, which costs the NHS more than breast, lung and bowel cancer combined, is responsible for nearly eight times as many deaths as the superbug MRSA at its peak, according to the study commissioned by NHS Improving Quality.
The study, carried out by kidney disease experts and Insight Health Economics, found that the condition is five times more prevalent in English hospitals than previously thought.
Report co-author Professor Donal O'Donoghue, consultant renal physician at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said: "We know that at least a thousand people a month are dying in hospital from acute kidney injury due to poor care.
"These deaths are avoidable. This is completely unacceptable and we can't allow it to continue. Good basic care would save these lives and save millions of pounds for the NHS.
"Doctors and nurses need to make elementary checks to prevent AKI. In general, people who are having surgery shouldn't be asked to go without water for longer than two hours.
"Sometimes that is unavoidable but then medical staff need to check their patients are not becoming dehydrated. They also need to be aware that some common medications increase the risk of AKI."
Joyce Robins from Patient Concern said: "These figures are really alarming. Too often we are hearing of cases where patients, especially the elderly, are not being properly hydrated - about cases where patients are left begging for water and being told to wait."
She said: "Some cases can be complex but in too many others we are seeing basic care being neglected. Ensuring patients are fed and hydrated is the very minimum we should be able to provide in the 21st century NHS - this is a deeply disturbing refection of the care being provided."
The infection usually develops before patients enter hospital and is often down to problems like dehydration, or an adverse reaction from seriously ill patients to over-the-counter medicines such as ibuprofen, as a result of their condition.
The study into the economic impact of the condition in England found it was present on admission to hospital in nearly 75 per cent of cases. The authors said efforts to prevent infection will need to focus on primary and community care.
Once in hospital, the infection can easily be diagnosed by a simple blood test or urine measurement, both of which are standard practice, but clinical staff are not always sure what warning signs to look for, the researchers found.
After being diagnosed, the condition can often be treated by addressing the underlying problem, for example by ensuring the patient stays hydrated or by switching their medication, with only 10 per cent of patients requiring dialysis.
Older people are particularly vulnerable to the infection but younger patients are also affected. The study found that one in 25 of all hospital inpatients under the age of 40 develops the condition.
Retired maths teacher Maura Murray, 72, from Epsom, Surrey, endured a nightmare ordeal after becoming dehydrated in hospital and developing the condition.
“I’d had an operation for a broken leg but I was so ill for ten days after being discharged that my husband took me to accident and emergency at Epsom, where they recognised my kidneys weren’t functioning properly,” she said.
The grandmother was put on a drip that fed fluids intravenously. But when weekend staff were unable to change her canula for the intravenous tube, she was left to dehydrate on the ward.
“They kept saying to me, ‘you must drink’ but I was vomiting so much I couldn’t keep anything down. I was trying but I couldn’t do anything about it and no one was noticing,” she said.
“When you’re feeling very poorly, you haven’t got the energy to shout and fight them, you can’t do anything about it.”
The result was that Mrs Murray’s kidney function dipped to just 10 per cent, a life-threatening level. After treatment, her function is now at 19 per cent, which has left her with permanent health problems such as anaemia.
“I feel very cross, it was such an awful shock to think that something like that could happen because of the staff’s ineptitude. When you go into hospital, you trust them to care for you. I hope no one has to suffer like I did,” she said.
Marion Kerr, health economist at Insight Health Economics, said: "AKI costs the NHS more than £1 billion every year. That's more than we spend on breast, lung and bowel cancer combined.
"Every day more than 30 people are dying needlessly. Compare that to MRSA which was killing about four people a day at its peak.
"Simple improvements in basic care could save the NHS £200 million pounds a year and, more importantly, save thousands of lives."
A spokesman for NHS England said: "We have taken steps to ensure the NHS puts in place coherent long-term plans to reduce avoidable deaths in our hospitals, and to improve the way data is used in decision making.
"Health research based on real-life evidence like this is vitally important for NHS commissioners in choosing where to target their resources, and we thank Insight Health Economics and NHS Improving Quality for carrying it out."
Charlotte Leslie MP, Conservative member of the Commons health select commitee said: "This is really concerning - it highlights a lack of fundamental care in some of our hospitals and suggests that in some places basic standards are not being met."
"We saw in Mid-Staffs that the unthinkable can happen. We have to look again at nursing training, at continuity of medical care and that the management focus is on having sufficient frontline staff to look after patients."
A Department of Health spokesperson said: “The Health Secretary is clear in his ambition to make the NHS the safest health service in the world.
“Hospitals are ‘signing up to safety’ as part of their commitment to save more lives and reduce harm.
“Following the Francis Inquiry into care at Mid Staffordshire, we are also introducing new fundamental NHS standards covering the basics of care, including proper hydration.
"Increased effort is being put into training doctors and nurses about how to spot and treat Acute Kidney Failure and NICE has issued strong guidance on preventing this condition."
This article is courtesy from the Telegraph.
The deaths from acute kidney injury could be prevented by simple steps such as nurses ensuring patients have enough to drink and doctors reviewing their medication, the researchers say.
Between 15,000 and 40,000 patients die annually because hospital staff fail to diagnose the treatable kidney problem, a figure that dwarfs the death toll from superbugs like MRSA.
The report comes less than a year after the NHS watchdog NICE was forced to issue guidelines on giving patients water after it found that 42,000 deaths a year could be avoided if staff ensured the sick were hydrated.
It highlighted how old and vulnerable patients can be left on wards without fluids, quickly becoming too weak from dehydration to request a drink from nurses, which hastens their deterioration.
The latest research said the condition, often called “the silent killer” because it goes unnoticed by medical staff, may affect as many as one in seven hospital patients and costs the NHS £1 billion a year.
The infection causes a loss of kidney function and can develop very quickly. It can occur in people already ill from conditions such as heart failure or diabetes, and those admitted to hospital with infections.
It can also develop after major surgery, such as some kinds of heart surgery, because the kidneys can be deprived of normal blood flow during the procedure. Severe dehydration is one of the main causes of the condition.
“Many of the failings identiļ¬ed in the report related to basic medical care, such as checking of electrolytes, performance of physiological observations and adequate senior review,” the researchers found.
The condition, which costs the NHS more than breast, lung and bowel cancer combined, is responsible for nearly eight times as many deaths as the superbug MRSA at its peak, according to the study commissioned by NHS Improving Quality.
The study, carried out by kidney disease experts and Insight Health Economics, found that the condition is five times more prevalent in English hospitals than previously thought.
Report co-author Professor Donal O'Donoghue, consultant renal physician at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said: "We know that at least a thousand people a month are dying in hospital from acute kidney injury due to poor care.
"These deaths are avoidable. This is completely unacceptable and we can't allow it to continue. Good basic care would save these lives and save millions of pounds for the NHS.
"Doctors and nurses need to make elementary checks to prevent AKI. In general, people who are having surgery shouldn't be asked to go without water for longer than two hours.
"Sometimes that is unavoidable but then medical staff need to check their patients are not becoming dehydrated. They also need to be aware that some common medications increase the risk of AKI."
Joyce Robins from Patient Concern said: "These figures are really alarming. Too often we are hearing of cases where patients, especially the elderly, are not being properly hydrated - about cases where patients are left begging for water and being told to wait."
She said: "Some cases can be complex but in too many others we are seeing basic care being neglected. Ensuring patients are fed and hydrated is the very minimum we should be able to provide in the 21st century NHS - this is a deeply disturbing refection of the care being provided."
The infection usually develops before patients enter hospital and is often down to problems like dehydration, or an adverse reaction from seriously ill patients to over-the-counter medicines such as ibuprofen, as a result of their condition.
The study into the economic impact of the condition in England found it was present on admission to hospital in nearly 75 per cent of cases. The authors said efforts to prevent infection will need to focus on primary and community care.
Once in hospital, the infection can easily be diagnosed by a simple blood test or urine measurement, both of which are standard practice, but clinical staff are not always sure what warning signs to look for, the researchers found.
After being diagnosed, the condition can often be treated by addressing the underlying problem, for example by ensuring the patient stays hydrated or by switching their medication, with only 10 per cent of patients requiring dialysis.
Older people are particularly vulnerable to the infection but younger patients are also affected. The study found that one in 25 of all hospital inpatients under the age of 40 develops the condition.
Retired maths teacher Maura Murray, 72, from Epsom, Surrey, endured a nightmare ordeal after becoming dehydrated in hospital and developing the condition.
“I’d had an operation for a broken leg but I was so ill for ten days after being discharged that my husband took me to accident and emergency at Epsom, where they recognised my kidneys weren’t functioning properly,” she said.
The grandmother was put on a drip that fed fluids intravenously. But when weekend staff were unable to change her canula for the intravenous tube, she was left to dehydrate on the ward.
“They kept saying to me, ‘you must drink’ but I was vomiting so much I couldn’t keep anything down. I was trying but I couldn’t do anything about it and no one was noticing,” she said.
“When you’re feeling very poorly, you haven’t got the energy to shout and fight them, you can’t do anything about it.”
The result was that Mrs Murray’s kidney function dipped to just 10 per cent, a life-threatening level. After treatment, her function is now at 19 per cent, which has left her with permanent health problems such as anaemia.
“I feel very cross, it was such an awful shock to think that something like that could happen because of the staff’s ineptitude. When you go into hospital, you trust them to care for you. I hope no one has to suffer like I did,” she said.
Marion Kerr, health economist at Insight Health Economics, said: "AKI costs the NHS more than £1 billion every year. That's more than we spend on breast, lung and bowel cancer combined.
"Every day more than 30 people are dying needlessly. Compare that to MRSA which was killing about four people a day at its peak.
"Simple improvements in basic care could save the NHS £200 million pounds a year and, more importantly, save thousands of lives."
A spokesman for NHS England said: "We have taken steps to ensure the NHS puts in place coherent long-term plans to reduce avoidable deaths in our hospitals, and to improve the way data is used in decision making.
"Health research based on real-life evidence like this is vitally important for NHS commissioners in choosing where to target their resources, and we thank Insight Health Economics and NHS Improving Quality for carrying it out."
Charlotte Leslie MP, Conservative member of the Commons health select commitee said: "This is really concerning - it highlights a lack of fundamental care in some of our hospitals and suggests that in some places basic standards are not being met."
"We saw in Mid-Staffs that the unthinkable can happen. We have to look again at nursing training, at continuity of medical care and that the management focus is on having sufficient frontline staff to look after patients."
A Department of Health spokesperson said: “The Health Secretary is clear in his ambition to make the NHS the safest health service in the world.
“Hospitals are ‘signing up to safety’ as part of their commitment to save more lives and reduce harm.
“Following the Francis Inquiry into care at Mid Staffordshire, we are also introducing new fundamental NHS standards covering the basics of care, including proper hydration.
"Increased effort is being put into training doctors and nurses about how to spot and treat Acute Kidney Failure and NICE has issued strong guidance on preventing this condition."
This article is courtesy from the Telegraph.
Friday, 25 April 2014
NHS complaints’ procedure slammed - again
As lawyers, we deal with complaints against the NHS on a daily basis when handling clients’ medical negligence claims, and so we’ve tended to become inured to the byzantine nature of its complaints’ procedure. Healthwatch England, the consumer champion for health and care, has recently brought attention to the "hopelessly complicated” complaints system and has called for wholesale reform. This is not a new campaign: at least six other reviews into the NHS complaints’ procedure have been carried out since 1994, all of which have made recommendations for improvement – and most of which seem to have disappeared into a black hole.
Healthwatch England has criticised the confusing and complex nature of the current system noting that an average individual would struggle to navigate their way round it. Recent reports by both the Health Select Committee and Robert Francis QC noted that the complaints system was not fit for purpose. There is clearly no shortage of good advice: the Patients’ Association has recommended standards for good complaint handling and the recent ‘Review of the NHS Hospitals Complaint System’ by Ann Clywd MP and Professor Patricia Hart has set out straightforward, common sense suggestions for improving matters.
Formal complaint or negligence claim?
In 2012/13 the NHS received over 162,000 written complaints (source: Health and Social Care Information Centre), 31.9% of which related to inpatient hospital acute services. Communication with patients accounted for the second highest proportion of complaints received – which comes as no particular surprise given the inept way in which many of them are dealt with.
We come across this regularly: what upsets our clients most is the cavalier fashion in which their initial complaint is often handled. An explanation of what went wrong accompanied by an apology is, in many cases, all that is required to resolve the situation. It is the poor communication around these complaints which often leads to accusations of, and claims for, medical negligence and the discovery by Healthwatch England that over 70 bodies are involved in dealing with complaints goes some way to explaining why.
NHS complaints procedure
One could be forgiven for thinking that the complaints system is deliberately set up to confuse and obstruct. NHS England while stating that it is ‘designed to be as patient focused as possible’ refers to the ‘numerous different organisations’ that comprise the behemoth that is the NHS and acknowledges that it is possible to send a complaint to the wrong section, giving the impression of being passed from pillar to post. It is certainly true that many of the recent criticisms into the failings of the NHS have included the complaints system within their scope.
Is there change on the horizon?
Julie Mellor, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman said: "We agree with Healthwatch that the current complaints system is too complex and we are working with the Department of Health, NHS England and regulators to help people better understand where they need to go when they want to raise a concern." There is also an understanding that the defensive response to complaints is fundamentally detrimental to resolving any issues early on and that this is a cultural issue which needs to change. Clearly, it remains a matter of wait and see.
There is no doubt that it is in the interest of the NHS to make the complaints procedure as straightforward as possible and have appropriate mechanisms in place to respond sensibly to people’s concerns. If complaints could be investigated and dealt with sensitively and promptly, the organisation will almost certainly see a decline in the number of medical negligence claims being lodged. Indeed, Michael Powers QC once said that if complaints were dealt with promptly and appropriately it would reduce the number of medical negligence claims by 70%. Even if the majority of these claims do not proceed, investigating them absorbs time and resources which could be more valuably deployed elsewhere.
Written by Jeanette Whyman, medical negligence solicitor with Wright Hassall.
Healthwatch England has criticised the confusing and complex nature of the current system noting that an average individual would struggle to navigate their way round it. Recent reports by both the Health Select Committee and Robert Francis QC noted that the complaints system was not fit for purpose. There is clearly no shortage of good advice: the Patients’ Association has recommended standards for good complaint handling and the recent ‘Review of the NHS Hospitals Complaint System’ by Ann Clywd MP and Professor Patricia Hart has set out straightforward, common sense suggestions for improving matters.
Formal complaint or negligence claim?
In 2012/13 the NHS received over 162,000 written complaints (source: Health and Social Care Information Centre), 31.9% of which related to inpatient hospital acute services. Communication with patients accounted for the second highest proportion of complaints received – which comes as no particular surprise given the inept way in which many of them are dealt with.
We come across this regularly: what upsets our clients most is the cavalier fashion in which their initial complaint is often handled. An explanation of what went wrong accompanied by an apology is, in many cases, all that is required to resolve the situation. It is the poor communication around these complaints which often leads to accusations of, and claims for, medical negligence and the discovery by Healthwatch England that over 70 bodies are involved in dealing with complaints goes some way to explaining why.
NHS complaints procedure
One could be forgiven for thinking that the complaints system is deliberately set up to confuse and obstruct. NHS England while stating that it is ‘designed to be as patient focused as possible’ refers to the ‘numerous different organisations’ that comprise the behemoth that is the NHS and acknowledges that it is possible to send a complaint to the wrong section, giving the impression of being passed from pillar to post. It is certainly true that many of the recent criticisms into the failings of the NHS have included the complaints system within their scope.
Is there change on the horizon?
Julie Mellor, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman said: "We agree with Healthwatch that the current complaints system is too complex and we are working with the Department of Health, NHS England and regulators to help people better understand where they need to go when they want to raise a concern." There is also an understanding that the defensive response to complaints is fundamentally detrimental to resolving any issues early on and that this is a cultural issue which needs to change. Clearly, it remains a matter of wait and see.
There is no doubt that it is in the interest of the NHS to make the complaints procedure as straightforward as possible and have appropriate mechanisms in place to respond sensibly to people’s concerns. If complaints could be investigated and dealt with sensitively and promptly, the organisation will almost certainly see a decline in the number of medical negligence claims being lodged. Indeed, Michael Powers QC once said that if complaints were dealt with promptly and appropriately it would reduce the number of medical negligence claims by 70%. Even if the majority of these claims do not proceed, investigating them absorbs time and resources which could be more valuably deployed elsewhere.
Written by Jeanette Whyman, medical negligence solicitor with Wright Hassall.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Where You Live Could Increase the Risk of Medical Negligence
People living in the Yorkshire and Humberside area are at greater risk.
A poll, carried out by Medical Accident Group as part of an ongoing study, asked 1,497 over 18's from across the UK about medical negligence or catastrophic injury claims they have made over the past five years.
The results found people living in the Yorkshire and Humberside area of the UK are most likely to experience complications with medical care.
The research has determined where the hotspots for medical problems are in the UK. With over 60% of respondents saying 'they didn't like the thought of other people going through the same' should homeowners be aware of areas in which these risks are more likely to occur?
Following the Yorkshire and Humberside area in second place on the poll is the South West of the UK with the largest number of claims being for surgical complications. In the North West, which came third in the poll, catastrophic injury claims were the highest and London, in fourth place, had the most cosmetic surgery complications. According to the poll, the East Midlands area has the lowest rate of medical negligence, but worryingly in this area birth injury complications were the most common complaint.
UK Areas With Most Risk of Medical Negligence:
1. Yorkshire & Humberside – birth injury complications
2. South West – surgical complications
3. North West – catastrophic injury claims
4. London – cosmetic surgery complications
5. East Midlands – birth injury complications
Inez Brown, Partner at Medical Accident Group said: 'Whilst these results may seem alarming, it’s important to remember that most surgeries, medical procedures and births go smoothly and don’t lead to a medical negligence claim – it’s a small minority that have a bad experience.'
Could this be the next installment in the long line of complaints about quality of care in the NHS?
The research has highlighted the importance of making medical claims, but the company warn patients to be aware of time restrictions. Mr Brown said: 'It’s important for Britons to be aware of these time restrictions so that they know all of the options available to them. Making a claim is very important, as you could be preventing a terrible experience happening to somebody else.'
This article is courtesy from Female First.
A poll, carried out by Medical Accident Group as part of an ongoing study, asked 1,497 over 18's from across the UK about medical negligence or catastrophic injury claims they have made over the past five years.
The results found people living in the Yorkshire and Humberside area of the UK are most likely to experience complications with medical care.
The research has determined where the hotspots for medical problems are in the UK. With over 60% of respondents saying 'they didn't like the thought of other people going through the same' should homeowners be aware of areas in which these risks are more likely to occur?
Following the Yorkshire and Humberside area in second place on the poll is the South West of the UK with the largest number of claims being for surgical complications. In the North West, which came third in the poll, catastrophic injury claims were the highest and London, in fourth place, had the most cosmetic surgery complications. According to the poll, the East Midlands area has the lowest rate of medical negligence, but worryingly in this area birth injury complications were the most common complaint.
UK Areas With Most Risk of Medical Negligence:
1. Yorkshire & Humberside – birth injury complications
2. South West – surgical complications
3. North West – catastrophic injury claims
4. London – cosmetic surgery complications
5. East Midlands – birth injury complications
Inez Brown, Partner at Medical Accident Group said: 'Whilst these results may seem alarming, it’s important to remember that most surgeries, medical procedures and births go smoothly and don’t lead to a medical negligence claim – it’s a small minority that have a bad experience.'
Could this be the next installment in the long line of complaints about quality of care in the NHS?
The research has highlighted the importance of making medical claims, but the company warn patients to be aware of time restrictions. Mr Brown said: 'It’s important for Britons to be aware of these time restrictions so that they know all of the options available to them. Making a claim is very important, as you could be preventing a terrible experience happening to somebody else.'
This article is courtesy from Female First.
Monday, 21 April 2014
Pregnant woman died after 'delay by trainee medics’
A pregnant woman bled to death after trainee paramedics waited 40 minutes to take her to hospital, an inquest has heard.
Trudy Glenister, 38, told family she feared she was “losing the baby” after suffering vomiting and abdominal pains in April 2011.
An inquest at Chelmsford Coroner’s Court heard how trainee paramedics waited 40 minutes before leaving for Southend Hospital and refused to use emergency sirens.
Mrs Glenister, who was five weeks pregnant, went into cardiac arrest after suffering internal bleeding due to a suspected ectopic pregnancy. She was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the hospital.
Mark Elms, an ambulance trainee, told the court he and a student colleague had arrived at the home in Great Wakering, Essex, at 7.29pm on April 11, 2011, and began making observations at 7.35pm.
Observations continued until 8.09pm, before they set off without emergency lights or sirens, as Mr Elms claimed that he feared using them might “increase the patient’s anxiety”. The court heard that, following the 15-minute journey, the crew queued up behind other ambulances, unaware of the emergency at hand. Mr Elms admitted that he had been training for only a year and his knowledge of ectopic pregnancies was restricted to two brief paragraphs in training manuals.
He claimed he had followed his training by carrying out two sets of observations before taking the patient to hospital.
A post mortem examination revealed Mrs Glenister had four to five litres of blood in her abdominal area in what pathologist Dr Ian Caulder described as an “acute medical surgical emergency”.
The foetus in her Fallopian tube had ruptured her ovarian artery, causing heavy internal bleeding.
Roger Wicks, a solicitor, who represented Mrs Glenister’s family, called on the coroner, Caroline Beasley-Murray, to record medical negligence as a factor in her death. He said the trainee’s actions amounted to “gross failings in the provision of basic care”. The inquest was adjourned ahead of summing up next week.
Dave Hill, representing the ambulance trust, said the incident had not been investigated and no procedures had been changed since Mrs Glenister’s death.
The hearing was adjourned until next week.
This article is courtesy from The Telegraph.
Trudy Glenister, 38, told family she feared she was “losing the baby” after suffering vomiting and abdominal pains in April 2011.
An inquest at Chelmsford Coroner’s Court heard how trainee paramedics waited 40 minutes before leaving for Southend Hospital and refused to use emergency sirens.
Mrs Glenister, who was five weeks pregnant, went into cardiac arrest after suffering internal bleeding due to a suspected ectopic pregnancy. She was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the hospital.
Mark Elms, an ambulance trainee, told the court he and a student colleague had arrived at the home in Great Wakering, Essex, at 7.29pm on April 11, 2011, and began making observations at 7.35pm.
Observations continued until 8.09pm, before they set off without emergency lights or sirens, as Mr Elms claimed that he feared using them might “increase the patient’s anxiety”. The court heard that, following the 15-minute journey, the crew queued up behind other ambulances, unaware of the emergency at hand. Mr Elms admitted that he had been training for only a year and his knowledge of ectopic pregnancies was restricted to two brief paragraphs in training manuals.
He claimed he had followed his training by carrying out two sets of observations before taking the patient to hospital.
A post mortem examination revealed Mrs Glenister had four to five litres of blood in her abdominal area in what pathologist Dr Ian Caulder described as an “acute medical surgical emergency”.
The foetus in her Fallopian tube had ruptured her ovarian artery, causing heavy internal bleeding.
Roger Wicks, a solicitor, who represented Mrs Glenister’s family, called on the coroner, Caroline Beasley-Murray, to record medical negligence as a factor in her death. He said the trainee’s actions amounted to “gross failings in the provision of basic care”. The inquest was adjourned ahead of summing up next week.
Dave Hill, representing the ambulance trust, said the incident had not been investigated and no procedures had been changed since Mrs Glenister’s death.
The hearing was adjourned until next week.
This article is courtesy from The Telegraph.
Friday, 18 April 2014
Wokingham schoolboy wins six-figure compensation payout after hospital blunders left him deaf
A schoolboy who was left deaf because of sub-standard care he received in hospital as a baby has won a six-figure compensation payout from the NHS.
Raphael Hemmings, six, of Wokingham, developed a permanent hearing disability after Royal Berkshire Hospital failed to probe and adequately treat the jaundice he suffered shortly after his birth in May 2007.
Through his father, Raphael launched a claim for damages against Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, which later admitted liability for his injuries.
On Monday, a judge at London’s High Court approved a compensation settlement worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, which will pay for equipment and educational support to help Raphael “maximise his potential”.
Raphael’s lawyers claimed that medics failed to investigate a bilirubin build-up in his system days after his delivery.
The problem was so serious it left Raphael with permanently damaged hearing.
The trust admitted liability for Raphael’s debilitating condition and agreed to pay him a damages package his lawyers say will allow his family to “look ahead and rest assured that his future needs will be met”.
Judge Stephen Oliver-Jones QC approved the settlement because Raphael is too young to agree it himself.
Shaheen Rahman, representing the NHS, said: “The trust acknowledges the care Raphael received was not of the standard he was entitled to expect.
“I would like to express my sincere apologies, on behalf of the trust, to Raphael and his family.
“We are very pleased a settlement has been reached and we would like to offer Raphael and his family all our best wishes for the future.”
Judge Oliver-Jones said that, despite Raphael’s disability, he has done “very well indeed” at school and that he is in the “top percentage in his year”.
He added: “I have no doubt that with the determination and care he has, he will be able to cope and manage his disability.
“And with the assistance which can be provided in his educational years, he will come out of it, hopefully, with a good career ahead of him.”
Judge Oliver-Jones also paid tribute to the support Raphael has received from his family, telling his father, who was in court: “Money represents inadequate recompense but it is the only way the court can deal with it.”
The judge said he was “perfectly willing and able to approve the settlement”, describing it as a “reasonable” package to secure Raphael’s future.
Speaking after the hearing, Raphael’s solicitor, Leena Savjani, of Irwin Mitchell, said: “The settlement will ensure Raphael has access to the best possible support and that his disability does not prevent him from maximising his potential.”
Ms Savjani said the payout will provide Raphael with “audiological equipment and educational provision” to help him add to his already-impressive achievements at school.
She added: “We hope lessons have been learned by the trust to prevent any other babies from suffering unnecessary disabilities that have a significant impact on their lives.”
This article is courtesy from Get Reading.
Raphael Hemmings, six, of Wokingham, developed a permanent hearing disability after Royal Berkshire Hospital failed to probe and adequately treat the jaundice he suffered shortly after his birth in May 2007.
Through his father, Raphael launched a claim for damages against Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, which later admitted liability for his injuries.
On Monday, a judge at London’s High Court approved a compensation settlement worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, which will pay for equipment and educational support to help Raphael “maximise his potential”.
Raphael’s lawyers claimed that medics failed to investigate a bilirubin build-up in his system days after his delivery.
The problem was so serious it left Raphael with permanently damaged hearing.
The trust admitted liability for Raphael’s debilitating condition and agreed to pay him a damages package his lawyers say will allow his family to “look ahead and rest assured that his future needs will be met”.
Judge Stephen Oliver-Jones QC approved the settlement because Raphael is too young to agree it himself.
Shaheen Rahman, representing the NHS, said: “The trust acknowledges the care Raphael received was not of the standard he was entitled to expect.
“I would like to express my sincere apologies, on behalf of the trust, to Raphael and his family.
“We are very pleased a settlement has been reached and we would like to offer Raphael and his family all our best wishes for the future.”
Judge Oliver-Jones said that, despite Raphael’s disability, he has done “very well indeed” at school and that he is in the “top percentage in his year”.
He added: “I have no doubt that with the determination and care he has, he will be able to cope and manage his disability.
“And with the assistance which can be provided in his educational years, he will come out of it, hopefully, with a good career ahead of him.”
Judge Oliver-Jones also paid tribute to the support Raphael has received from his family, telling his father, who was in court: “Money represents inadequate recompense but it is the only way the court can deal with it.”
The judge said he was “perfectly willing and able to approve the settlement”, describing it as a “reasonable” package to secure Raphael’s future.
Speaking after the hearing, Raphael’s solicitor, Leena Savjani, of Irwin Mitchell, said: “The settlement will ensure Raphael has access to the best possible support and that his disability does not prevent him from maximising his potential.”
Ms Savjani said the payout will provide Raphael with “audiological equipment and educational provision” to help him add to his already-impressive achievements at school.
She added: “We hope lessons have been learned by the trust to prevent any other babies from suffering unnecessary disabilities that have a significant impact on their lives.”
This article is courtesy from Get Reading.
Wednesday, 16 April 2014
Southend Hospital apologises to Tracy Godwin after her baby was left to die in her arms
A mum whose premature baby boy died less than an hour after he was born says she can finally move on after an inquest found Southend Hospital had failed to give her proper care.
Coroner Caroline Beasley- Murray highlighted four lapses in care when Tracy Godwin gave birth to her son Tomat 22 weeks and two days into her pregnancy on March 6, 2010.
The baby lived for 46 minutes before dying in his mother’s arms with no hospital staff present attempted to resuscitate him or comfort her.
The hospital’s policy of not resuscitating babies born before 23 weeks had not been explained to Miss Godwin.
She has received an unreserved apology from the hospital which has fully accepted its failings and put in place new guidelines and training to ensure it never happens again.
An inquest at Chelmsford Coroners Court found Southend Hospital failed in its provision of care on four grounds: ! Delays in providing an obstetric review when Miss Godwin was admitted to hospital.
She was not reviewed by a consultant until the next day.
! Inadequate counselling despite the death of her baby in extremely traumatic circumstances.
! Poor communication. Miss Godwin was not told what the hospital’s policywas for babies born so prematurely, so she was unaware Tom would not be resuscitated or what would happen when he was born.
Miss Godwin, who received undisclosed damages from the hospital in January, welcomed the findings of the inquest and the apology from the hospital.! The absence of a paediatrician to explain to Miss Godwin before the birth the baby would not be resuscitated and what would happen. The paediatrician should also have been present after the birth.
She said: “I am ecstatic with the results. They have said sorry and the inquest is over.
That is a milestone from which I can move, but it doesn’t bring Tom back.
“It has been an incredibly difficult four years since the death of my baby, Tom, in horrendous circumstances.
“I have finally received an apology and the coroner has found the trust failed in its care of me and my baby. This means a lot to me, for what I went through, but also to Tom’s memory.”
Above all, Miss Godwin said she welcomed the implementation the new procedures, dding: “This ordeal has brought about change at the hospital and the fact no other mother will go through what I went through is a positive that I will cherish.
“There are now new policies and guidelines in place, known by all maternity staff and which I have had an assurance will be followed at all times.”
New guidelines introduced for premature births after incident
Southend Hospital has new guidelines telling staff what to do in such cases.
The hospital also carries out annual training, so staff are aware of the procedures that must be followed.
In addition, it is making the guidelines available for all staff to access at all times, and providing bereavement counselling training to a large number of midwives, so there is always someone on duty who is able to provide it.
Sue Hardy chief nurse said: “We again offer our sincere condolences to Miss Godwin on the loss of her baby and are truly sorry her experience of care did not meet the high standard we strive to provide.
“We have carried out a great deal of work to improve our policy for babies born under 24 weeks old and have increased the level of training and awareness among staff of how to better support families.”
Johanne Turner, clinical negligence partner at BTMK Solicitors in Southend, who
acted for Ms Godwin, said: “This was one of the worst cases of clinical negligence arising out of maternity care I have ever worked on.
“Four years on from the tragic death of Tracy’s baby I am absolutely delighted she has received an admittance of fault and an apology.”
Mother left without help or comfort
Tracy Godwin experienced a normal pregnancy with a due date of July 8, 2010.
On March 4, however, when she was 22 weeks pregnant, she experienced severe abdominal pain and was devastated to be told she was in labour.
She suffered three days of excruciating pain and contractions in hospital and, when told her baby was unlikely to survive being born at 23 weeks, told staff they should do everything possible to keep it alive.
Tom was eventually born after a midwife forcibly broke her waters. He weighed only one pound and had difficulty breathing, but no consultant came to assist.
Tracy asked for help and asked why there was no incubator in the room, but medical staff refused to take the child to the baby care unit and he died in her arms 46 minutes later.
After six weeks, Tracy was told resuscitating her baby was against hospital policy.
Following her ordeal, she has since given birth to daughter Isla at a different hospital. Isla was also premature, born at 24 weeks, but is a healthy girl.
Coroner Caroline Beasley- Murray highlighted four lapses in care when Tracy Godwin gave birth to her son Tomat 22 weeks and two days into her pregnancy on March 6, 2010.
The baby lived for 46 minutes before dying in his mother’s arms with no hospital staff present attempted to resuscitate him or comfort her.
The hospital’s policy of not resuscitating babies born before 23 weeks had not been explained to Miss Godwin.
She has received an unreserved apology from the hospital which has fully accepted its failings and put in place new guidelines and training to ensure it never happens again.
An inquest at Chelmsford Coroners Court found Southend Hospital failed in its provision of care on four grounds: ! Delays in providing an obstetric review when Miss Godwin was admitted to hospital.
She was not reviewed by a consultant until the next day.
! Inadequate counselling despite the death of her baby in extremely traumatic circumstances.
! Poor communication. Miss Godwin was not told what the hospital’s policywas for babies born so prematurely, so she was unaware Tom would not be resuscitated or what would happen when he was born.
Miss Godwin, who received undisclosed damages from the hospital in January, welcomed the findings of the inquest and the apology from the hospital.! The absence of a paediatrician to explain to Miss Godwin before the birth the baby would not be resuscitated and what would happen. The paediatrician should also have been present after the birth.
She said: “I am ecstatic with the results. They have said sorry and the inquest is over.
That is a milestone from which I can move, but it doesn’t bring Tom back.
“It has been an incredibly difficult four years since the death of my baby, Tom, in horrendous circumstances.
“I have finally received an apology and the coroner has found the trust failed in its care of me and my baby. This means a lot to me, for what I went through, but also to Tom’s memory.”
Above all, Miss Godwin said she welcomed the implementation the new procedures, dding: “This ordeal has brought about change at the hospital and the fact no other mother will go through what I went through is a positive that I will cherish.
“There are now new policies and guidelines in place, known by all maternity staff and which I have had an assurance will be followed at all times.”
New guidelines introduced for premature births after incident
Southend Hospital has new guidelines telling staff what to do in such cases.
The hospital also carries out annual training, so staff are aware of the procedures that must be followed.
In addition, it is making the guidelines available for all staff to access at all times, and providing bereavement counselling training to a large number of midwives, so there is always someone on duty who is able to provide it.
Sue Hardy chief nurse said: “We again offer our sincere condolences to Miss Godwin on the loss of her baby and are truly sorry her experience of care did not meet the high standard we strive to provide.
“We have carried out a great deal of work to improve our policy for babies born under 24 weeks old and have increased the level of training and awareness among staff of how to better support families.”
Johanne Turner, clinical negligence partner at BTMK Solicitors in Southend, who
acted for Ms Godwin, said: “This was one of the worst cases of clinical negligence arising out of maternity care I have ever worked on.
“Four years on from the tragic death of Tracy’s baby I am absolutely delighted she has received an admittance of fault and an apology.”
Mother left without help or comfort
Tracy Godwin experienced a normal pregnancy with a due date of July 8, 2010.
On March 4, however, when she was 22 weeks pregnant, she experienced severe abdominal pain and was devastated to be told she was in labour.
She suffered three days of excruciating pain and contractions in hospital and, when told her baby was unlikely to survive being born at 23 weeks, told staff they should do everything possible to keep it alive.
Tom was eventually born after a midwife forcibly broke her waters. He weighed only one pound and had difficulty breathing, but no consultant came to assist.
Tracy asked for help and asked why there was no incubator in the room, but medical staff refused to take the child to the baby care unit and he died in her arms 46 minutes later.
After six weeks, Tracy was told resuscitating her baby was against hospital policy.
Following her ordeal, she has since given birth to daughter Isla at a different hospital. Isla was also premature, born at 24 weeks, but is a healthy girl.
This article is courtesy from Southend Standard.
Monday, 14 April 2014
Where You Live Could Increase the Risk of Medical Negligence
A poll, carried out by Medical Accident Group as part of an ongoing study, asked 1,497 over 18's from across the UK about medical negligence or catastrophic injury claims they have made over the past five years.
The results found people living in the Yorkshire and Humberside area of the UK are most likely to experience complications with medical care.
The research has determined where the hotspots for medical problems are in the UK. With over 60% of respondents saying 'they didn't like the thought of other people going through the same' should homeowners be aware of areas in which these risks are more likely to occur?
Following the Yorkshire and Humberside area in second place on the poll is the South West of the UK with the largest number of claims being for surgical complications. In the North West, which came third in the poll, catastrophic injury claims were the highest and London, in fourth place, had the most cosmetic surgery complications. According to the poll, the East Midlands area has the lowest rate of medical negligence, but worryingly in this area birth injury complications were the most common complaint.
UK Areas With Most Risk of Medical Negligence:
1. Yorkshire & Humberside – birth injury complications
2. South West – surgical complications
3. North West – catastrophic injury claims
4. London – cosmetic surgery complications
5. East Midlands – birth injury complications
Inez Brown, Partner at Medical Accident Group said: 'Whilst these results may seem alarming, it’s important to remember that most surgeries, medical procedures and births go smoothly and don’t lead to a medical negligence claim – it’s a small minority that have a bad experience.'
Could this be the next installment in the long line of complaints about quality of care in the NHS?
The research has highlighted the importance of making medical claims, but the company warn patients to be aware of time restrictions. Mr Brown said: 'It’s important for Britons to be aware of these time restrictions so that they know all of the options available to them. Making a claim is very important, as you could be preventing a terrible experience happening to somebody else.'
This article is courtesy from Female First.
The results found people living in the Yorkshire and Humberside area of the UK are most likely to experience complications with medical care.
The research has determined where the hotspots for medical problems are in the UK. With over 60% of respondents saying 'they didn't like the thought of other people going through the same' should homeowners be aware of areas in which these risks are more likely to occur?
Following the Yorkshire and Humberside area in second place on the poll is the South West of the UK with the largest number of claims being for surgical complications. In the North West, which came third in the poll, catastrophic injury claims were the highest and London, in fourth place, had the most cosmetic surgery complications. According to the poll, the East Midlands area has the lowest rate of medical negligence, but worryingly in this area birth injury complications were the most common complaint.
UK Areas With Most Risk of Medical Negligence:
1. Yorkshire & Humberside – birth injury complications
2. South West – surgical complications
3. North West – catastrophic injury claims
4. London – cosmetic surgery complications
5. East Midlands – birth injury complications
Inez Brown, Partner at Medical Accident Group said: 'Whilst these results may seem alarming, it’s important to remember that most surgeries, medical procedures and births go smoothly and don’t lead to a medical negligence claim – it’s a small minority that have a bad experience.'
Could this be the next installment in the long line of complaints about quality of care in the NHS?
The research has highlighted the importance of making medical claims, but the company warn patients to be aware of time restrictions. Mr Brown said: 'It’s important for Britons to be aware of these time restrictions so that they know all of the options available to them. Making a claim is very important, as you could be preventing a terrible experience happening to somebody else.'
This article is courtesy from Female First.
Friday, 11 April 2014
Bristol NHS branded 'disgusting' over heart surgery issues
The mother of a boy who died after heart surgery in Bristol has said continuing NHS issues are "disgusting".
Luke Jenkins' parents have recently discovered his death was not correctly recorded in official figures submitted by the Bristol Children's Hospital.
They complained to the medical director of the NHS and a personal reply email admitted there had been a data error.
Bristol's NHS trust said it was unaware how the error had occurred but it would ensure it would not happen again.
It has now been corrected with the trust highlighting the hospital's 30-day mortality rate for the Fontan procedure - a type of heart surgery - "remains entirely within the expected range."
Seven-year-old Luke, from Cardiff, suffered cardiac arrest and died following heart surgery in March 2012. He had been expected to make a full recovery.
For that year the original statistics held by NICOR - the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research - incorrectly suggested there were no deaths of children who had Luke's same heart operation.
The death rate statistics are crucial to the NHS as they highlight potential dangers around surgical units.
Faye Valentine, Luke Jenkin's mother, said: "This is the last thing we need. To keep having to prove what they're doing is wrong - they should be recognising their own mistakes.
"It's not for us to be pointing out where they've gone wrong. They shouldn't be putting us through this.
"They've put us through enough taking Luke, and to put us through extra stuff as well which isn't needed is pretty disgusting."
NICOR said a "detailed chronological investigation dating back to 2012" was under way to explore why the error had occurred.
Bristol University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said: "We take the recording and monitoring of mortality data very seriously.
"From our own initial investigations it has not been possible to fully determine how this error occurred.
"As such we have suggested that a joint investigation is carried out, involving both NICOR and the Office for National Statistics, who provide data to NICOR, to establish how this error occurred and to ensure that stringent measures are in place to prevent a recurrence."
Last month Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, announced an inquiry would be held into the deaths of children following heart surgery at Bristol Children's Hospital.
A number of families had met with him to share their concerns about the care received by their children in the hospital.
This article is courtesy from the BBC.
Luke Jenkins' parents have recently discovered his death was not correctly recorded in official figures submitted by the Bristol Children's Hospital.
They complained to the medical director of the NHS and a personal reply email admitted there had been a data error.
Bristol's NHS trust said it was unaware how the error had occurred but it would ensure it would not happen again.
It has now been corrected with the trust highlighting the hospital's 30-day mortality rate for the Fontan procedure - a type of heart surgery - "remains entirely within the expected range."
Seven-year-old Luke, from Cardiff, suffered cardiac arrest and died following heart surgery in March 2012. He had been expected to make a full recovery.
For that year the original statistics held by NICOR - the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research - incorrectly suggested there were no deaths of children who had Luke's same heart operation.
The death rate statistics are crucial to the NHS as they highlight potential dangers around surgical units.
Faye Valentine, Luke Jenkin's mother, said: "This is the last thing we need. To keep having to prove what they're doing is wrong - they should be recognising their own mistakes.
"It's not for us to be pointing out where they've gone wrong. They shouldn't be putting us through this.
"They've put us through enough taking Luke, and to put us through extra stuff as well which isn't needed is pretty disgusting."
NICOR said a "detailed chronological investigation dating back to 2012" was under way to explore why the error had occurred.
Bristol University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said: "We take the recording and monitoring of mortality data very seriously.
"From our own initial investigations it has not been possible to fully determine how this error occurred.
"As such we have suggested that a joint investigation is carried out, involving both NICOR and the Office for National Statistics, who provide data to NICOR, to establish how this error occurred and to ensure that stringent measures are in place to prevent a recurrence."
Last month Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, announced an inquiry would be held into the deaths of children following heart surgery at Bristol Children's Hospital.
A number of families had met with him to share their concerns about the care received by their children in the hospital.
This article is courtesy from the BBC.
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Widower calls for action to avoid repeat of tragedy
The widower of a diabetic woman whose life could have been saved by a simple blood test has called on more to be done to avoid a similar tragedy.
David Pitt spoke out following a Nursing and Midwifery Council hearing on Thursday, March 27, which saw lead nurse Jackie Charman receiving a five-year caution order.
She has been told she must do further training if she returns to work after admitting failing to make the necessary checks before Margaret Pitt died in the Alexandra Hospital at the end of 2010 but has not been struck off the nursing register.
Mrs Pitt, aged 55, had lived with Type One diabetes for 30 years but suffered an irreversible brain injury and died after her glucose levels were not monitored.
Last year Mr Pitt received an undisclosed settlement and formal apology from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust after they admitted her critically low blood sugar levels would have been detected sooner had the checks taken place.
Mr Pitt, aged 63, said: "My family and I are frustrated, hurt and disappointed as we have been given no reason about why the NMC made the decision not to remove Jackie Charman from the nursing register.
“We hoped we would get closure yesterday in the hearing, but knowing she can be in charge of other patient’s care again leaves us struggling to move on.
“We can only hope that the training she will have to undergo to begin nursing again ensures she learns from what went wrong and that no other family will be left in the same situation as us.
“The Trust has repeatedly said that lessons have been learned, however we have not been told exactly what action has been taken to improve the treatment diabetic patients are offered. We feel that this is the least we deserve – nothing can bring Margaret back, but knowing her death was not in vain will give us some peace of mind."
Sara Burns, partner and medical law expert at Irwin Mitchell, added: "From investigating the failures relating to Mrs Pitt’s care, whilst Jackie Charman was the lead nurse and made a series of undeniable errors, she was also not the only individual at fault.
"Like Mr Pitt, we would like to see reassurance from the Trust about exactly what improvements have been made by the Trust in the treatment of diabetic patients to ensure the same tragedy can never be repeated.
"We welcome confirmation that it has increased training and funding in that particular area of care but Mr Pitt deserves to know what systems and guidelines have now been introduced that would protect a patient from suffering the same gross negligence as his wife."
A Trust spokeswoman said they wanted to offer their sincere condolences to Mrs Pitt's family.
"The nurse in question no longer works for our trust. We took action to improve care following this case. We continue to invest heavily in diabetes services both in our hospitals and in the community."
David Pitt spoke out following a Nursing and Midwifery Council hearing on Thursday, March 27, which saw lead nurse Jackie Charman receiving a five-year caution order.
She has been told she must do further training if she returns to work after admitting failing to make the necessary checks before Margaret Pitt died in the Alexandra Hospital at the end of 2010 but has not been struck off the nursing register.
Mrs Pitt, aged 55, had lived with Type One diabetes for 30 years but suffered an irreversible brain injury and died after her glucose levels were not monitored.
Last year Mr Pitt received an undisclosed settlement and formal apology from Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust after they admitted her critically low blood sugar levels would have been detected sooner had the checks taken place.
Mr Pitt, aged 63, said: "My family and I are frustrated, hurt and disappointed as we have been given no reason about why the NMC made the decision not to remove Jackie Charman from the nursing register.
“We hoped we would get closure yesterday in the hearing, but knowing she can be in charge of other patient’s care again leaves us struggling to move on.
“We can only hope that the training she will have to undergo to begin nursing again ensures she learns from what went wrong and that no other family will be left in the same situation as us.
“The Trust has repeatedly said that lessons have been learned, however we have not been told exactly what action has been taken to improve the treatment diabetic patients are offered. We feel that this is the least we deserve – nothing can bring Margaret back, but knowing her death was not in vain will give us some peace of mind."
Sara Burns, partner and medical law expert at Irwin Mitchell, added: "From investigating the failures relating to Mrs Pitt’s care, whilst Jackie Charman was the lead nurse and made a series of undeniable errors, she was also not the only individual at fault.
"Like Mr Pitt, we would like to see reassurance from the Trust about exactly what improvements have been made by the Trust in the treatment of diabetic patients to ensure the same tragedy can never be repeated.
"We welcome confirmation that it has increased training and funding in that particular area of care but Mr Pitt deserves to know what systems and guidelines have now been introduced that would protect a patient from suffering the same gross negligence as his wife."
A Trust spokeswoman said they wanted to offer their sincere condolences to Mrs Pitt's family.
"The nurse in question no longer works for our trust. We took action to improve care following this case. We continue to invest heavily in diabetes services both in our hospitals and in the community."
This article is courtesy from the Redditch Standard.
Monday, 7 April 2014
'All we've ever wanted is the truth about why our precious baby died'
The truth of how and why a baby girl died in hospital still haunts her grieving parents.
Nearly six years on, the parents of Erin McAuley are campaigning to improve communication protocols between healthcare authorities and patients' families when things go wrong.
Erin is one of five babies among 11 hospital deaths in the Northern Health Trust in 2008-2013, which the Health Minister publicly acknowledged last week where care "was below standard".
Her parents Chris and Louise, both 38, remain shocked by the lack of transparency and honesty behind the "inhuman treatment" that the mother-of-two received during her difficult labour at Causeway Hospital in Coleraine.
They only learnt on Tuesday that their daughter's death was deemed to be a serious adverse incident – any event or circumstance that led or could have led to serious unintended or unexpected harm, loss or damage – and say they were never told about this.
Mr McAuley and and his wife, from Ballycastle, should have celebrated their eighth wedding anniversary in May 27, 2008 with a wonderful new addition to their family.
Erin would have been the youngest, and perhaps only, daughter to the Co Antrim couple, and little sister to two older brothers, Criostai and Feargus.
A week over her due date, Mrs McAuley was taken into the Causeway Hospital's maternity unit and laboured slowly over a long night on May 11.
"What occurred in front of my eyes was catastrophic and one that I hope nobody will ever go through in their lifetime," said Mr McAuley.
"At 5pm they agreed to prepare Louise for theatre. Eventually a doctor came in to tell us that they had to make a decision on who had priority to the theatre as an emergency had come in. In the space of 20 seconds, he told us that the other emergency was being taken first – I was completely floored."
Erin was born at 8pm on May 12 and was quickly moved to Antrim Hospital, as there was no neo-natal unit at the Causeway.
"The drive from Coleraine to Antrim is one I will never forget, the feeling of loneliness, thinking what was I going to do if I lost my daughter and wife, how would I cope?" said Mr McAuley. "Louise was never told why Erin was being taken to Antrim, only that she was sick. That was inhuman."
The next day as it became clear that the child would not survive, Erin was transferred back to hospital to her mother so that she and her husband could spend the last precious hours together. Once Erin died at 4pm on May 13, Mrs McAuley had to undergo another operation and spent the next five days on life support, having lost 10 pints of blood.
The McAuley's won substantial damages in a medical negligence case against the Northern Health Trust in October 13, 2013 after the case was settled last July.
Yesterday, a spokeswoman for the Northern Health Trust admited that its care in this case was below standard.
However, the family are still angry that an internal report that was carried out shortly after Erin's death – and which found no fault with her and Louise's care – has never been given to them all these years later.
"The truth is all we ever wanted about Erin, and we never got it until we pursued it," said Mr McAuley, a senior recreation officer with Moyle District Council.
Nearly six years on, the parents of Erin McAuley are campaigning to improve communication protocols between healthcare authorities and patients' families when things go wrong.
Erin is one of five babies among 11 hospital deaths in the Northern Health Trust in 2008-2013, which the Health Minister publicly acknowledged last week where care "was below standard".
Her parents Chris and Louise, both 38, remain shocked by the lack of transparency and honesty behind the "inhuman treatment" that the mother-of-two received during her difficult labour at Causeway Hospital in Coleraine.
They only learnt on Tuesday that their daughter's death was deemed to be a serious adverse incident – any event or circumstance that led or could have led to serious unintended or unexpected harm, loss or damage – and say they were never told about this.
Mr McAuley and and his wife, from Ballycastle, should have celebrated their eighth wedding anniversary in May 27, 2008 with a wonderful new addition to their family.
Erin would have been the youngest, and perhaps only, daughter to the Co Antrim couple, and little sister to two older brothers, Criostai and Feargus.
A week over her due date, Mrs McAuley was taken into the Causeway Hospital's maternity unit and laboured slowly over a long night on May 11.
"What occurred in front of my eyes was catastrophic and one that I hope nobody will ever go through in their lifetime," said Mr McAuley.
"At 5pm they agreed to prepare Louise for theatre. Eventually a doctor came in to tell us that they had to make a decision on who had priority to the theatre as an emergency had come in. In the space of 20 seconds, he told us that the other emergency was being taken first – I was completely floored."
Erin was born at 8pm on May 12 and was quickly moved to Antrim Hospital, as there was no neo-natal unit at the Causeway.
"The drive from Coleraine to Antrim is one I will never forget, the feeling of loneliness, thinking what was I going to do if I lost my daughter and wife, how would I cope?" said Mr McAuley. "Louise was never told why Erin was being taken to Antrim, only that she was sick. That was inhuman."
The next day as it became clear that the child would not survive, Erin was transferred back to hospital to her mother so that she and her husband could spend the last precious hours together. Once Erin died at 4pm on May 13, Mrs McAuley had to undergo another operation and spent the next five days on life support, having lost 10 pints of blood.
The McAuley's won substantial damages in a medical negligence case against the Northern Health Trust in October 13, 2013 after the case was settled last July.
Yesterday, a spokeswoman for the Northern Health Trust admited that its care in this case was below standard.
However, the family are still angry that an internal report that was carried out shortly after Erin's death – and which found no fault with her and Louise's care – has never been given to them all these years later.
"The truth is all we ever wanted about Erin, and we never got it until we pursued it," said Mr McAuley, a senior recreation officer with Moyle District Council.
This article is courtesy from The Belfast Telegraph.
Friday, 4 April 2014
Liverpool Women's Hospital - we need more money for delivering babies
Merseyside's specialist women's hospital is warning they will be forced to make cuts or go into the red because they are not getting enough money for each baby they deliver.
Chief executive of Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Kathryn Thomson, backed by their board of directors, claimed the maternity tariff – the money paid to them by the NHS for the work they do – is too low.
And they said if it is not increased soon it could start to have a detrimental effect on patient care. She said so far they had managed to balance the books without any negative effect.
But she said, if the situation was not resolved, as they juggle having to make the cost savings demanded by government, it will force them into the red or cause them to make cuts.
Mrs Thomson said safe staffing was their priority and the trust’s board of directors was not prepared to cut into that at all.
But, without action to address the issue, she said it may result in the loss of other services which enhance the experience of women during pregnancy, childbirth and the early days of motherhood – like breast feeding support in the community.
Mrs Thomson said all hospitals providing maternity services experience the same shortfall in funding. However, as Liverpool Women’s is the largest single site maternity unit in the UK, they feel the impact of this more than other trusts who can offset the shortfall with surpluses gained from other specialities.
The hospital is leading a collective of hospitals nationally in lobbying the Department of Health (DoH) for extra funding.
It is also in talks with local commissioners about the problem. Mrs Thomson said: "If you take a normal delivery, we will get paid around £1,400
“£700 of that will automatically go on insurance because maternity services are high risk and can result in high medical negligence claims.
“Over the last four years we have reduced our costs by £22m by becoming more efficient . As we go forward, unless the maternity tariff changes, it's going to be increasingly difficult to maintain our position with respect to staffing levels. And we as a board are not prepared to compromise on staffing levels.
“We have done as much as we can do to keep staffing at reasonable levels and have managed so far to subsidise the NHS services through our private patient income But it's not sustainable long term and because of that we are in conversation with commissioners."
Problems with the maternity tariff were highlighted by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee earlier this year. The PAC is recommending the Government takes another look at the maternity tariff to see if it is set at the right level.
A spokeswoman for local commissioners of maternity services Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group said: “We want Liverpool patients to receive the very best care from all parts of the NHS, including maternity services. We're currently working with those organisations who provide care locally and other commissioners to develop plans for the next five years.
“This will focus on making sure that services are both high quality and financially sustainable for the future."
A DoH spokesperson said: "The Department and NHS England are currently considering the recommendations set out in the PAC's report on maternity services in England. The Government will publish its response in April."
This article is courtesy from The Liverpool Echo.
Chief executive of Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Kathryn Thomson, backed by their board of directors, claimed the maternity tariff – the money paid to them by the NHS for the work they do – is too low.
And they said if it is not increased soon it could start to have a detrimental effect on patient care. She said so far they had managed to balance the books without any negative effect.
But she said, if the situation was not resolved, as they juggle having to make the cost savings demanded by government, it will force them into the red or cause them to make cuts.
Mrs Thomson said safe staffing was their priority and the trust’s board of directors was not prepared to cut into that at all.
But, without action to address the issue, she said it may result in the loss of other services which enhance the experience of women during pregnancy, childbirth and the early days of motherhood – like breast feeding support in the community.
Mrs Thomson said all hospitals providing maternity services experience the same shortfall in funding. However, as Liverpool Women’s is the largest single site maternity unit in the UK, they feel the impact of this more than other trusts who can offset the shortfall with surpluses gained from other specialities.
The hospital is leading a collective of hospitals nationally in lobbying the Department of Health (DoH) for extra funding.
It is also in talks with local commissioners about the problem. Mrs Thomson said: "If you take a normal delivery, we will get paid around £1,400
“£700 of that will automatically go on insurance because maternity services are high risk and can result in high medical negligence claims.
“Over the last four years we have reduced our costs by £22m by becoming more efficient . As we go forward, unless the maternity tariff changes, it's going to be increasingly difficult to maintain our position with respect to staffing levels. And we as a board are not prepared to compromise on staffing levels.
“We have done as much as we can do to keep staffing at reasonable levels and have managed so far to subsidise the NHS services through our private patient income But it's not sustainable long term and because of that we are in conversation with commissioners."
Problems with the maternity tariff were highlighted by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee earlier this year. The PAC is recommending the Government takes another look at the maternity tariff to see if it is set at the right level.
A spokeswoman for local commissioners of maternity services Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group said: “We want Liverpool patients to receive the very best care from all parts of the NHS, including maternity services. We're currently working with those organisations who provide care locally and other commissioners to develop plans for the next five years.
“This will focus on making sure that services are both high quality and financially sustainable for the future."
A DoH spokesperson said: "The Department and NHS England are currently considering the recommendations set out in the PAC's report on maternity services in England. The Government will publish its response in April."
This article is courtesy from The Liverpool Echo.
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Bristol cancer survivor sues NHS trust over claim it made test mistake
Five-years-ago the death of Big Brother star Jade Goody shocked the nation after it was revealed doctors missed critical warning signs of her cervical cancer.
This prompted a wave of women undergoing cervical smear tests in what charities termed 'the Jade effect'.
Among the thousands going for tests was Charlotte Brown, of Pucklechurch,
But despite having the correct examinations she claims her smear test was wrongly reported as normal when there were abnormalities.
The mother-of-two is now suing the North Bristol NHS Trust and is calling for new rules to be introduced which will see stricter double-checking of test results.
Two years after her initial test, in 2010 she returned to her GP with worrying symptoms. Further medical testing revealed she had cervical cancer.
Ms Brown said: "I passed out when the doctors told me, I was very scared. I had two children aged five and four at the time and I had separated from my husband so I was worried about who would look after my children."
She endured invasive surgery and weeks of gruelling radiotherapy and chemotherapy before being told the news she had beaten the cancer.
Ms Brown said although this was a huge relief she was told the treatment had caused long-term health problems, including not being able to have more children.
And she had developed a condition called lymphedema which causes her legs to swell, resulting in mobility problems.
Due to the emotional and physical strain on her life, she had to give up her job as a support worker for the elderly and people with disabilities.
Ms Brown, now 37, who lives with her children Bill, 10 and Madeline, eight, said: "The whole ordeal has had a huge physical and emotional impact on me. I go for regular smear tests and it's distressing to know that abnormalities were there but these were not reported.
"I know that mistakes will always happen but making the screening system safer by ensuring tests are thoroughly double checked could help to capture more cases where errors have been made. This in turn could help to ensure more women at risk of cervical cancer get the treatment they urgently need."
Angharad Hughes, Charlotte's medical negligence solicitor at law firm JMW, said: "The screening process does involve smear tests being double-checked. However the second 'rapid review' check is done very quickly, meaning there is greater room for error. As a safety net to pick up cases that were missed on the first check it is not ideal."
A trust spokeswoman said: "We are aware of Ms Brown's case but due to ongoing legal proceedings it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the matter at this time."
This article is courtesy from The Bristol Post.
This prompted a wave of women undergoing cervical smear tests in what charities termed 'the Jade effect'.
Among the thousands going for tests was Charlotte Brown, of Pucklechurch,
But despite having the correct examinations she claims her smear test was wrongly reported as normal when there were abnormalities.
The mother-of-two is now suing the North Bristol NHS Trust and is calling for new rules to be introduced which will see stricter double-checking of test results.
Two years after her initial test, in 2010 she returned to her GP with worrying symptoms. Further medical testing revealed she had cervical cancer.
Ms Brown said: "I passed out when the doctors told me, I was very scared. I had two children aged five and four at the time and I had separated from my husband so I was worried about who would look after my children."
She endured invasive surgery and weeks of gruelling radiotherapy and chemotherapy before being told the news she had beaten the cancer.
Ms Brown said although this was a huge relief she was told the treatment had caused long-term health problems, including not being able to have more children.
And she had developed a condition called lymphedema which causes her legs to swell, resulting in mobility problems.
Due to the emotional and physical strain on her life, she had to give up her job as a support worker for the elderly and people with disabilities.
Ms Brown, now 37, who lives with her children Bill, 10 and Madeline, eight, said: "The whole ordeal has had a huge physical and emotional impact on me. I go for regular smear tests and it's distressing to know that abnormalities were there but these were not reported.
"I know that mistakes will always happen but making the screening system safer by ensuring tests are thoroughly double checked could help to capture more cases where errors have been made. This in turn could help to ensure more women at risk of cervical cancer get the treatment they urgently need."
Angharad Hughes, Charlotte's medical negligence solicitor at law firm JMW, said: "The screening process does involve smear tests being double-checked. However the second 'rapid review' check is done very quickly, meaning there is greater room for error. As a safety net to pick up cases that were missed on the first check it is not ideal."
A trust spokeswoman said: "We are aware of Ms Brown's case but due to ongoing legal proceedings it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the matter at this time."
This article is courtesy from The Bristol Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)