A liver transplant patient died after a hospital ‘never event’ in which a nasal gastric feeding tube was wrongly inserted into his lung.
Retired civil engineer Charles Ward died at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital two days after the nasogastric tube was fitted in January 2012.
Staff nurse Gavin Kelly who misplaced the tube told an Exeter inquest yesterday:”I had no reason to believe it was in the wrong place at the time.”
He said 62 year old Mr Ward ‘coughed and spluttered’ when the tube was inserted and the nurse said:”It is not a pleasant procedure.”
Mr Ward, of Dawlish Warren, Devon, had been fed for six hours by the tube when he collapsed in his bed at 4am.
A crash team was called and he was taken into intensive care where he died a day later.
The Devon coroner Dr Elizabeth Earland was told that since Mr Ward’s death, procedures had been changed at the hospital.
A second nurse, Paul Jenkins, told the inquest that Mr Ward had slumped on his bed on his side and was fighting for breath.
He said when the tube was inserted, Mr Ward ‘coughed and spluttered several times’ as he tried to get his breath back.
He added that Mr Ward had been ‘a bit agitated’ but there ‘was no mention of the tube being in the wrong place’.
Nurse Jenkins said Okement ward at the hospital was ‘always busy’ and staff had been dealing with a couple of falls and some confused patients but he said ‘we were not rushed off our feet’.
A medical expert Dr Jason Payne-James, a consultant forensic physician, said:”I do not believe these actions constitute gross negligence.”
But the coroner heard that the feed tube used on Mr Ward was withdrawn after his death and a new model is used which a tip which is easier to see on an X ray.
Solicitor Julie Ford, for the hospital Trust said the incident was ‘an unintended consequence of an intended action’.
The coroner recorded a narrative verdict and said Mr Ward died from chemical pneumonitis caused by the liquid feed going into his lung because of the naso gastric tube being wrongly positioned.
An acid PH test was carried out incorrectly by the staff nurse which should have indicated the tube had been inserted into Mr Ward’s lung and not his stomach.
The inquest was told he suffered liver disease and was awaiting a liver transplant but he needed feeding up to make him fit enough for the surgery.
A spokesman from the hospital said:”The Trust has been in contact with Mr Ward’s family from the outset of our investigation into this incident to provide as much support and information as possible.
“The Trust takes any incident of this nature – known as a Never Event - extremely seriously and although they are very rare, they are acted on immediately, fully investigated and lessons identified so that the risks of them happening in future are minimised.”
Em Wilkinson-Brice, Chief Nurse and Chief Operating Officer at the RD&E, said: “Providing safe care to patients is our top priority and our clinical teams work to exceptionally high standards. It is important that staff feel comfortable in reporting any incidents and that we learn from them.”
This article is courtesy from Exeter Express and Echo.
Regularly updated blog featuring news, articles and information relating to clinical/medical negligence.
Showing posts with label Medical Equipment Failures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medical Equipment Failures. Show all posts
Monday, 31 March 2014
Saturday, 9 November 2013
Bungling doctors told Emily and Chelsea to abort their 'lifeless' babies. Thank God they refused
Sitting in a hospital waiting room, Emily Wheatley picked up her mobile phone and made a call she will remember vividly for the rest of her life.
‘Normally having your first scan is a really exciting, happy day for a new mum,’ the 32-year-old says, struggling to control her emotions. ‘But for me it was one of the worst.’
Minutes earlier the mother-to-be had been told she had miscarried and the baby she had longed for was dead in her womb at just ten weeks.
‘When they told me they couldn’t detect a heartbeat for the baby and that he or she was dead, I couldn’t take it in and burst into tears,’ recalls Emily.
‘A midwife told me I could either go home and wait for two weeks for the foetus to come out naturally or that I could take medication to speed it up there and then.
‘My sister was with me and she comforted me as best she could, but I was in a state of shock. I didn’t know what to do. All I wanted was my mother. As soon as I’d composed myself sufficiently I called her.’
And, today, a year and a half on, the gurgling tot bouncing up and down on her lap is a joyful reminder of the consequences of that split-second decision — and her mother’s response.
‘Call it “mother’s instinct” if you like but Mum knew me and knew in her heart that my baby was still alive,’ continues Emily. ‘She said I had to get a second opinion immediately and I was not to take the medication under any circumstances.’
So the following day Emily did as instructed and, at a different NHS hospital, she underwent another scan.
Within minutes a consultant was informing her that the first hospital had made a mistake and that she was, indeed, still pregnant.
It was amazing news for Emily, who because of a medical condition had feared she might struggle to have children. But the impact of what had gone before could not be so easily forgotten.
Even a photograph of the scan failed to reassure her that everything was all right and a shadow was cast over her entire pregnancy.
Indeed, she says it is only recently that she has started enjoying being a mum to Ella who is now eight months old.
‘I just didn’t dare believe that my baby was alive in case they were wrong and I felt that way throughout my pregnancy, which led to me feeling guilty, because I knew it should have been a happy time and I should have been a joyous mum-to-be,’ she says.
It would be nice to be able to dismiss what happened to Emily, who lives in Monmouth, South Wales, as a one-off. But that is not the case.
For while her treatment at the first hospital undoubtedly fell well short of what it should have been, her near-miss story is not as rare as might be imagined. And mothers like her — whose babies are saved — are the lucky ones.
What is unknown is how many take medics’ advice on medication or undergo surgical procedures, to terminate what is, in fact, a viable pregnancy.
Research two years ago found that wrongly interpreted ultrasound scans could lead to 400 healthy pregnancies being misdiagnosed as miscarriages each year in Britain.
This is more than the estimated 300 cot deaths that occur in this country annually. And it is something that haunts Emily.
‘I just thank God I spoke to my mum when they were trying to shove pills down me to get what they said was a dead baby out,’ she says.
‘If I hadn’t, Ella wouldn’t be here now. How many mothers are there out there who have maybe aborted perfectly healthy babies because of the wrong advice?’
According to government statistics, approximately 20 per cent of pregnancies miscarry. This equates to roughly 168,000 miscarriages per year, with 143,000 of these occurring in the first 12 weeks.
Of the women affected, some 45,000 require a stay in an NHS hospital.
Guidelines issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence lay down procedures for diagnosing miscarriages when using ultrasound.
‘Normally having your first scan is a really exciting, happy day for a new mum,’ the 32-year-old says, struggling to control her emotions. ‘But for me it was one of the worst.’
Minutes earlier the mother-to-be had been told she had miscarried and the baby she had longed for was dead in her womb at just ten weeks.
‘When they told me they couldn’t detect a heartbeat for the baby and that he or she was dead, I couldn’t take it in and burst into tears,’ recalls Emily.
‘A midwife told me I could either go home and wait for two weeks for the foetus to come out naturally or that I could take medication to speed it up there and then.
‘My sister was with me and she comforted me as best she could, but I was in a state of shock. I didn’t know what to do. All I wanted was my mother. As soon as I’d composed myself sufficiently I called her.’
And, today, a year and a half on, the gurgling tot bouncing up and down on her lap is a joyful reminder of the consequences of that split-second decision — and her mother’s response.
‘Call it “mother’s instinct” if you like but Mum knew me and knew in her heart that my baby was still alive,’ continues Emily. ‘She said I had to get a second opinion immediately and I was not to take the medication under any circumstances.’
So the following day Emily did as instructed and, at a different NHS hospital, she underwent another scan.
Within minutes a consultant was informing her that the first hospital had made a mistake and that she was, indeed, still pregnant.
It was amazing news for Emily, who because of a medical condition had feared she might struggle to have children. But the impact of what had gone before could not be so easily forgotten.
Even a photograph of the scan failed to reassure her that everything was all right and a shadow was cast over her entire pregnancy.
Indeed, she says it is only recently that she has started enjoying being a mum to Ella who is now eight months old.
‘I just didn’t dare believe that my baby was alive in case they were wrong and I felt that way throughout my pregnancy, which led to me feeling guilty, because I knew it should have been a happy time and I should have been a joyous mum-to-be,’ she says.
It would be nice to be able to dismiss what happened to Emily, who lives in Monmouth, South Wales, as a one-off. But that is not the case.
For while her treatment at the first hospital undoubtedly fell well short of what it should have been, her near-miss story is not as rare as might be imagined. And mothers like her — whose babies are saved — are the lucky ones.
What is unknown is how many take medics’ advice on medication or undergo surgical procedures, to terminate what is, in fact, a viable pregnancy.
Research two years ago found that wrongly interpreted ultrasound scans could lead to 400 healthy pregnancies being misdiagnosed as miscarriages each year in Britain.
This is more than the estimated 300 cot deaths that occur in this country annually. And it is something that haunts Emily.
‘I just thank God I spoke to my mum when they were trying to shove pills down me to get what they said was a dead baby out,’ she says.
‘If I hadn’t, Ella wouldn’t be here now. How many mothers are there out there who have maybe aborted perfectly healthy babies because of the wrong advice?’
According to government statistics, approximately 20 per cent of pregnancies miscarry. This equates to roughly 168,000 miscarriages per year, with 143,000 of these occurring in the first 12 weeks.
Of the women affected, some 45,000 require a stay in an NHS hospital.
Guidelines issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence lay down procedures for diagnosing miscarriages when using ultrasound.
Specifically, it is recommended that women are given a trans-vaginal (TV) — or internal — scan: the type most effective at picking up signs of a viable pregnancy, such as a heartbeat.
Only where a woman does not want such a scan should a trans-abdominal (TA) scan (which is carried out over the stomach) be used. In these cases, the patient should be advised of the potential risk of misdiagnosis.
Why the elimination of any doubt is so critical is highlighted by the experience of women such as Emily.
It was on July 18 last year that Emily, a sales executive with an insurance company, attended the maternity unit of the University Hospital of Wales (UHW) in Cardiff for what should have been a routine scan to date her pregnancy.
Having previously undergone surgery for polycystic ovary syndrome, which affects the workings of the ovaries, Emily’s first pregnancy was all the more precious.
As typically happens with a dating scan, an external TA scan was carried out, in this case by a midwife sonographer.
During the scan, the medic compared the size of the gestation sac — the ‘water bag’ containing the growing baby and the amniotic fluid that nourishes it — with the size of the foetus itself.
The latter, she claimed, was smaller than it should have been, leading her to conclude that the foetus was dead.
Another abdominal scan, using a more powerful form of ultrasound, was then carried out, which also failed to detect a heartbeat.
Both scans were then repeated by a second midwife who obtained the same results. They concluded that the baby was dead and that Emily had suffered a miscarriage. At no point was she offered an internal ultrasound.
That only occurred the following morning at Nevill Hall Hospital in Abergavenny where Emily — having spoken to her mother and delayed taking medication to evacuate the baby from her womb — was referred by her GP.
‘A consultant gynaecologist carried out the test and after she had done it she asked me to wait and she fetched another doctor to look at the monitor,’ recalls Emily. ‘The consultant then told me: “I don’t know how to say this but you have got a very healthy baby in there.”
‘I was in pieces then, just all over the place, not knowing what to believe.
‘They showed me the recording of the baby moving but I still couldn’t accept it was true.
‘My mother tried to reassure me too but nothing was sinking in.’
Back at home, Emily, who split from Ella’s father shortly after discovering she was pregnant, struggled to cope with these mixed emotions. A month later she formally complained to the hospital about her treatment.
A response from its Nurse Director followed, which claimed that while ‘normal practice was followed on the day of the scan, I am not able to provide you with any answer as to why the foetal heartbeat was not visible’.
Emily then complained to Peter Tyndall, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. The shocking details of his investigation were published last week.
He found that since as long ago as 2006 staff at the University Hospital of Wales had been following outdated guidelines regarding scanning procedures. As a result, it is feared that hundreds of pregnant women using the hospital may have had healthy babies aborted.
The UHW delivers about 6,000 babies a year, with between 600 and 1,200 women suffering a miscarriage.
Mr Tyndall warned that Emily was unlikely to have been a one-off, adding: ‘There will have been others.’
He demanded a review of staff skills and ordered the hospital to pay Emily £1,500 in compensation.
As well as apologising to Emily, the hospital set up a helpline which has received 80 inquiries from women concerned about their treatment.
A number of the callers, it has emerged, were treated at other hospitals, prompting concern that the problem may be more widespread than first thought.
This chimes with the experience of 34-year-old Chelsea Muff.
The divorced mother-of-three from Bradford, West Yorkshire, gave birth to her youngest child Laila, 18 months ago. But, like Emily, her pregnancy was blighted by the failings of her local hospital.
Having suffered slight bleeding at seven weeks she attended the Early Pregnancy Unit at the Bradford Royal Infirmary in June 2011.
‘I went on my own because I was pretty sure that there was nothing wrong,’ says Chelsea, who works for a jewellery company.
‘The sonographer carried out a normal ultrasound scan on my stomach and then announced that there was nothing there, and that I’d had a miscarriage.
‘She left me for a bit by myself and then came back and said I had three options. I could be booked in for vacuum suction to remove the baby, I could take some tablets there and then that would make the baby pass through me or I could wait for the baby to come away naturally, which would take up to about a week.
‘I was distraught — I didn’t want to accept what I was being told and just got up and left. They told me that passing the baby could take a week or so and to call them if nothing had happened.’
They were, she recalls, terrible days. ‘I couldn’t work, I was crying in front of my children and all the time I thought I was carrying my dead baby,’ she says.
‘I was dreading what was going to happen. But at the same time, it didn’t feel right. I had two children already and I felt pregnant.’
When after ten days still nothing had happened, she was contacted by the hospital and told to come in for a vacuum suction. She ignored the call, only returning three days later to demand another scan.
This time she again underwent an abdominal scan — but with a very different outcome.
‘The consultant came in and said “Congratulations, everything’s fine with the baby”,’ recalls Chelsea.
But, as with Emily’s story, that was not the end of the emotional rollercoaster.
‘The rest of my pregnancy was awful because I was always scared something was going to happen, especially towards the end. If she ever stopped moving I thought I’d lost her again,’ she said. Chelsea complained to the hospital which admitted that the correct protocol had not been followed.
It has since reviewed its working practices and has paid for Chelsea to undergo counselling.
She explains: ‘From what I could make out I should have been given an internal scan and the baby would have shown up then. You go to hospitals and you expect them to know best, don’t you?’
Several other women who have also been misdiagnosed as suffering from miscarriages have told the Mail how their concerns were brushed aside by staff.
One, a 25-year-old from Edinburgh, was told not to worry ‘because you’ve already got one child’. Another, a 27-year-old from Essex, was offered anti-depressants — then told she could only take them if she accepted her baby was dead.
A spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said that strict guidelines relating to the use of internal scans were issued several years ago and that it was up to individual hospitals to implement them.
Meanwhile, Ruth Bender Atik — national director of the Miscarriage Association — warned that what had happened in Wales had caused distress for women across the country who would also now be concerned that they might have been misdiagnosed.
‘It is very, very distressing particularly if you have already been through medical or surgical management then wonder if this has happened to you,’ she said.
‘Unfortunately and unhappily, it has caused distress for people who have no way of finding out.
‘I hope, for women going forward, that they can take comfort from knowing that there really are good guidelines out there and that most hospitals are sticking to them.
‘Nobody wants to misdiagnose miscarriage or cause the end of a viable pregnancy.’
A fact that Emily and Chelsea —and their babies — need no reminding of.
This article is courtesy from The Daily Mail.
Only where a woman does not want such a scan should a trans-abdominal (TA) scan (which is carried out over the stomach) be used. In these cases, the patient should be advised of the potential risk of misdiagnosis.
Why the elimination of any doubt is so critical is highlighted by the experience of women such as Emily.
It was on July 18 last year that Emily, a sales executive with an insurance company, attended the maternity unit of the University Hospital of Wales (UHW) in Cardiff for what should have been a routine scan to date her pregnancy.
Having previously undergone surgery for polycystic ovary syndrome, which affects the workings of the ovaries, Emily’s first pregnancy was all the more precious.
As typically happens with a dating scan, an external TA scan was carried out, in this case by a midwife sonographer.
During the scan, the medic compared the size of the gestation sac — the ‘water bag’ containing the growing baby and the amniotic fluid that nourishes it — with the size of the foetus itself.
The latter, she claimed, was smaller than it should have been, leading her to conclude that the foetus was dead.
Another abdominal scan, using a more powerful form of ultrasound, was then carried out, which also failed to detect a heartbeat.
Both scans were then repeated by a second midwife who obtained the same results. They concluded that the baby was dead and that Emily had suffered a miscarriage. At no point was she offered an internal ultrasound.
That only occurred the following morning at Nevill Hall Hospital in Abergavenny where Emily — having spoken to her mother and delayed taking medication to evacuate the baby from her womb — was referred by her GP.
‘A consultant gynaecologist carried out the test and after she had done it she asked me to wait and she fetched another doctor to look at the monitor,’ recalls Emily. ‘The consultant then told me: “I don’t know how to say this but you have got a very healthy baby in there.”
‘I was in pieces then, just all over the place, not knowing what to believe.
‘They showed me the recording of the baby moving but I still couldn’t accept it was true.
‘My mother tried to reassure me too but nothing was sinking in.’
Back at home, Emily, who split from Ella’s father shortly after discovering she was pregnant, struggled to cope with these mixed emotions. A month later she formally complained to the hospital about her treatment.
A response from its Nurse Director followed, which claimed that while ‘normal practice was followed on the day of the scan, I am not able to provide you with any answer as to why the foetal heartbeat was not visible’.
Emily then complained to Peter Tyndall, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. The shocking details of his investigation were published last week.
He found that since as long ago as 2006 staff at the University Hospital of Wales had been following outdated guidelines regarding scanning procedures. As a result, it is feared that hundreds of pregnant women using the hospital may have had healthy babies aborted.
The UHW delivers about 6,000 babies a year, with between 600 and 1,200 women suffering a miscarriage.
Mr Tyndall warned that Emily was unlikely to have been a one-off, adding: ‘There will have been others.’
He demanded a review of staff skills and ordered the hospital to pay Emily £1,500 in compensation.
As well as apologising to Emily, the hospital set up a helpline which has received 80 inquiries from women concerned about their treatment.
A number of the callers, it has emerged, were treated at other hospitals, prompting concern that the problem may be more widespread than first thought.
This chimes with the experience of 34-year-old Chelsea Muff.
The divorced mother-of-three from Bradford, West Yorkshire, gave birth to her youngest child Laila, 18 months ago. But, like Emily, her pregnancy was blighted by the failings of her local hospital.
Having suffered slight bleeding at seven weeks she attended the Early Pregnancy Unit at the Bradford Royal Infirmary in June 2011.
‘I went on my own because I was pretty sure that there was nothing wrong,’ says Chelsea, who works for a jewellery company.
‘The sonographer carried out a normal ultrasound scan on my stomach and then announced that there was nothing there, and that I’d had a miscarriage.
‘She left me for a bit by myself and then came back and said I had three options. I could be booked in for vacuum suction to remove the baby, I could take some tablets there and then that would make the baby pass through me or I could wait for the baby to come away naturally, which would take up to about a week.
‘I was distraught — I didn’t want to accept what I was being told and just got up and left. They told me that passing the baby could take a week or so and to call them if nothing had happened.’
They were, she recalls, terrible days. ‘I couldn’t work, I was crying in front of my children and all the time I thought I was carrying my dead baby,’ she says.
‘I was dreading what was going to happen. But at the same time, it didn’t feel right. I had two children already and I felt pregnant.’
When after ten days still nothing had happened, she was contacted by the hospital and told to come in for a vacuum suction. She ignored the call, only returning three days later to demand another scan.
This time she again underwent an abdominal scan — but with a very different outcome.
‘The consultant came in and said “Congratulations, everything’s fine with the baby”,’ recalls Chelsea.
But, as with Emily’s story, that was not the end of the emotional rollercoaster.
‘The rest of my pregnancy was awful because I was always scared something was going to happen, especially towards the end. If she ever stopped moving I thought I’d lost her again,’ she said. Chelsea complained to the hospital which admitted that the correct protocol had not been followed.
It has since reviewed its working practices and has paid for Chelsea to undergo counselling.
She explains: ‘From what I could make out I should have been given an internal scan and the baby would have shown up then. You go to hospitals and you expect them to know best, don’t you?’
Several other women who have also been misdiagnosed as suffering from miscarriages have told the Mail how their concerns were brushed aside by staff.
One, a 25-year-old from Edinburgh, was told not to worry ‘because you’ve already got one child’. Another, a 27-year-old from Essex, was offered anti-depressants — then told she could only take them if she accepted her baby was dead.
A spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said that strict guidelines relating to the use of internal scans were issued several years ago and that it was up to individual hospitals to implement them.
Meanwhile, Ruth Bender Atik — national director of the Miscarriage Association — warned that what had happened in Wales had caused distress for women across the country who would also now be concerned that they might have been misdiagnosed.
‘It is very, very distressing particularly if you have already been through medical or surgical management then wonder if this has happened to you,’ she said.
‘Unfortunately and unhappily, it has caused distress for people who have no way of finding out.
‘I hope, for women going forward, that they can take comfort from knowing that there really are good guidelines out there and that most hospitals are sticking to them.
‘Nobody wants to misdiagnose miscarriage or cause the end of a viable pregnancy.’
A fact that Emily and Chelsea —and their babies — need no reminding of.
This article is courtesy from The Daily Mail.
Monday, 4 November 2013
Medical negligence claims and defective or failing equipment
Defects and failures are all-too-common issues in medical negligence claims. In many sectors, defects might not pose a particularly significant health and safety risk, but in healthcare they can literally be the difference between life and death.
Reporting defects and failures is therefore an essential part of patient protection and health and safety within the healthcare sector. Employers, workers and managers must be aware of the risks of failures and defects and know how to flag up these problems and remedy them when they are noticed, preventing medical negligence claims and improving patient outcomes.
What are failures and defects?
Failures and defects are:
- Incidents that occur due to inappropriate adjustments, modifications, maintenance or servicing, or through improper use, that cause equipment to become defective or to fail
- Events that could impact the safety of patients, employees or other people that arise due to defective or failing equipment
- Deficiencies in the economical or technological performance of equipment
- Failures in water, steam, electricity, communications, gas or other critical services
- Any defects identified by Local Authority or Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors that relate to products or their instructions
Dealing with defects and failures
Employees should feel free to report defects and failures - this is one of the best ways healthcare facilities can protect themselves from medical negligence claims. There is a Defect and Failure reporting system available, which is managed by the NGS and Social Care Information Centre. Reports can be made online at www.efm.ic.nhs.uk. Log-in names and passwords are not required. Alternatively, more information is available to concerned parties over the phone - people should dial 0845 300 6016.
Other action may be required when encountering defects and failures that could lead to medical negligence claims - employees should support the issue to their employer to ensure it is dealt with properly. Some of the additional actions that may be needed include:
- Reporting to the HSE under RIDDOR (the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations)
- Reporting under 1999's Ionising Radiation Regulations
- Reporting incidents to relevant NHS officers
- Preventing use and access to the failing or defective equipment
It is worth remembering that while healthcare bodies may wish to repair or remove the defective equipment in order to avoid medical negligence claims, this equipment may be evidence and should be treated accordingly. Therefore, this equipment should only be interfered with for explicit health and safety purposes or to prevent loss, personal injuries or additional damage.
No equipment should be removed unless the issue has been investigated and a course of action has been approved. Incident reports should be obtained, with eyewitness reports recorded, and in some cases, these reports should be signed in front of proper witnesses.
Preventing medical negligence claims and improving standards of patient care must be a key priority for all healthcare facilities. Employers must ensure their employees know what to do when encountering this equipment, as this knowledge could easily save patients' lives.
Stacey Aston
Stacey Aston has spent years looking into medical negligence compensation cases and other forms of mistreatment and poor service in the healthcare setting for a team of solicitors in Burnley, she likes playing with her pet rats.
Reporting defects and failures is therefore an essential part of patient protection and health and safety within the healthcare sector. Employers, workers and managers must be aware of the risks of failures and defects and know how to flag up these problems and remedy them when they are noticed, preventing medical negligence claims and improving patient outcomes.
What are failures and defects?
Failures and defects are:
- Incidents that occur due to inappropriate adjustments, modifications, maintenance or servicing, or through improper use, that cause equipment to become defective or to fail
- Events that could impact the safety of patients, employees or other people that arise due to defective or failing equipment
- Deficiencies in the economical or technological performance of equipment
- Failures in water, steam, electricity, communications, gas or other critical services
- Any defects identified by Local Authority or Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors that relate to products or their instructions
Dealing with defects and failures
Employees should feel free to report defects and failures - this is one of the best ways healthcare facilities can protect themselves from medical negligence claims. There is a Defect and Failure reporting system available, which is managed by the NGS and Social Care Information Centre. Reports can be made online at www.efm.ic.nhs.uk. Log-in names and passwords are not required. Alternatively, more information is available to concerned parties over the phone - people should dial 0845 300 6016.
Other action may be required when encountering defects and failures that could lead to medical negligence claims - employees should support the issue to their employer to ensure it is dealt with properly. Some of the additional actions that may be needed include:
- Reporting to the HSE under RIDDOR (the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations)
- Reporting under 1999's Ionising Radiation Regulations
- Reporting incidents to relevant NHS officers
- Preventing use and access to the failing or defective equipment
It is worth remembering that while healthcare bodies may wish to repair or remove the defective equipment in order to avoid medical negligence claims, this equipment may be evidence and should be treated accordingly. Therefore, this equipment should only be interfered with for explicit health and safety purposes or to prevent loss, personal injuries or additional damage.
No equipment should be removed unless the issue has been investigated and a course of action has been approved. Incident reports should be obtained, with eyewitness reports recorded, and in some cases, these reports should be signed in front of proper witnesses.
Preventing medical negligence claims and improving standards of patient care must be a key priority for all healthcare facilities. Employers must ensure their employees know what to do when encountering this equipment, as this knowledge could easily save patients' lives.
Stacey Aston
Stacey Aston has spent years looking into medical negligence compensation cases and other forms of mistreatment and poor service in the healthcare setting for a team of solicitors in Burnley, she likes playing with her pet rats.
Friday, 2 August 2013
Deciding whether or not to claim for hospital negligence
Going in to hospital is a scary period of time for most of us. However, the one thing that helps to feel better is the thought that we are in the hands of a skilled and experienced medical professional, who is going to do their upmost to take care of us so that we can leave hospital feeling better as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, doctors and other medical professionals are only human, and mistakes can be made even by the best of them.
There are times when the actions of your doctor can be considered to be negligent, which means they acted in a way that was lacking in care and attention and this resulted in you suffering from additional unnecessary injury.
If you feel as though you have been treated negligently, you will need to make the decision of whether or not you are going to claim for compensation.
Research and beware of what to expect
The process that you have to go through in order to claim compensation for hospital negligence is a gruelling one. All cases of this nature are complex and take a significant amount of time in order to conduct a thorough investigation. Furthermore, the expenses can quickly build up, so consider the way in which you will fund your legal case keeping in mind than no win no fee is sometimes an option.
You will also be expected to go over the story of what happened to you time and time again, which some people can find traumatic and emotionally draining. Whether or not you ultimately decide to make a claim is completely up to you. It is simply a matter of weighing up the benefits against the costs. It is also important to remember that there is no guarantee that you will win, but you can feel sure that your solicitors will do their upmost to help you.
Saturday, 6 April 2013
Ambulance service admits errors after woman left brain-damaged
An ambulance service has admitted a catalogue of errors after a late response to an emergency call left a woman brain damaged.
Caren Paterson, who had collapsed in her bedroom, suffered serious brain injuries after she was forced to wait nearly two hours for an ambulance that was just 100 metres away.
Paramedics had been ordered not to enter her flat without a police escort as officers had previously attended the premises and it was graded as high risk.
The delay caused her brain to be starved of oxygen, leaving her in need of specialist care for the rest of her life.
Lawyers acting on her behalf have demanded urgent improvements in the handling of 999 calls in London after the capital's ambulance service admitted 11 separate breaches of duty.
Paterson, 33, collapsed in the bedroom of her Islington flat early in the afternoon of 27 October 2007, and her condition quickly deteriorated, prompting her boyfriend to call 999 and report that she was unconscious, breathing abnormally and her lips were blue.
However, because police had previously been called to the Hargrave Road address, it was flagged as being on the high-risk address register and the ambulance crew was told to wait for a police escort.
There were no police available at that time and, despite a further two 999 calls from her boyfriend, the emergency medical team waited for more than an hour just 100 metres from her flat.
Paterson, who had been working as a researcher at King's College Hospital, eventually suffered a cardiac arrest at around 3.15pm, five minutes before police and an ambulance team arrived.
She now suffers long-term brain injury symptoms including chronic amnesia, anger outbursts, confusion and disorientation.
Her lawyer, John Davis, said it was not known why her property was on the high-risk register.
He said: "There is a list of failings and breaches of duty that occurred in response to the 999 call.
"It is particularly heartbreaking for Ms Paterson's family to know that an emergency response team was in very close proximity to her but unable to give her the crucial treatment she needed.
"The emergency crews eventually arrived 102 minutes after the first 999 call – but even then there was nobody senior enough on hand to administer the treatment that Ms Paterson needed.
"It is imperative that people in Ms Paterson's condition are treated as quickly as possible – even seconds can make a huge difference, let alone over an hour and a half.
"The emergency services had been made abundantly aware of the seriousness of her condition yet failed on several levels to handle the situation in accordance with their own guidelines.
"But for these failings and contraventions, Ms Paterson would have received appropriate medical treatment sooner, would have been taken to A&E sooner, and consequently would not have suffered the injuries she did.
"Following Ms Paterson's case, it has been acknowledged that the way the high-risk address register was operated needed to be radically overhauled – we endorse any review and improvement to this system which was clearly at the heart of the failings in this case.
"We appreciate the London Ambulance Service's admission of liability for the failings and we will now be working to secure a care package that will allow Ms Paterson to live in as much comfort as possible, and will afford her family some degree of peace of mind."
Paterson's mother, Eleanor Paterson, of Warkworth, Northumberland, said: "We welcome the admission of liability as a significant step towards ensuring Caren will continue to receive the care, treatment and specialist attention she will need for the rest of her life, but nothing will return our daughter to the way we knew her.
"The thought of an ambulance crew sitting waiting while my daughter lay in her flat as her condition went from serious to life-threatening, causing irreparable damage to her brain, is still shocking.
"Although I appreciate fully that the emergency services have guidelines in place, I now know that there were further procedures that should have been followed and, if they had been, my daughter would have received the treatment she needed."
The London Ambulance Service admitted 11 separate breaches of duty that contributed to Paterson's injuries, including failing to comply with hospital trust policies, failing to recognise there was no danger at the flat, and failing to assess the life-threatening nature of Paterson's condition.
A London Ambulance Service spokesman said: "We would like again to offer our sincere apologies to Dr Caren Paterson and to her family.
"We carried out a detailed investigation into the circumstances of the incident and we have accepted liability for the shortcomings in the care that was provided on 27 October 2007.
"Dr Paterson is bringing a claim for compensation against the service and we hope that the legal representatives can now work together to find a resolution."
This article is courtesy of theguardian.
Caren Paterson, who had collapsed in her bedroom, suffered serious brain injuries after she was forced to wait nearly two hours for an ambulance that was just 100 metres away.
Paramedics had been ordered not to enter her flat without a police escort as officers had previously attended the premises and it was graded as high risk.
The delay caused her brain to be starved of oxygen, leaving her in need of specialist care for the rest of her life.
Lawyers acting on her behalf have demanded urgent improvements in the handling of 999 calls in London after the capital's ambulance service admitted 11 separate breaches of duty.
Paterson, 33, collapsed in the bedroom of her Islington flat early in the afternoon of 27 October 2007, and her condition quickly deteriorated, prompting her boyfriend to call 999 and report that she was unconscious, breathing abnormally and her lips were blue.
However, because police had previously been called to the Hargrave Road address, it was flagged as being on the high-risk address register and the ambulance crew was told to wait for a police escort.
There were no police available at that time and, despite a further two 999 calls from her boyfriend, the emergency medical team waited for more than an hour just 100 metres from her flat.
Paterson, who had been working as a researcher at King's College Hospital, eventually suffered a cardiac arrest at around 3.15pm, five minutes before police and an ambulance team arrived.
She now suffers long-term brain injury symptoms including chronic amnesia, anger outbursts, confusion and disorientation.
Her lawyer, John Davis, said it was not known why her property was on the high-risk register.
He said: "There is a list of failings and breaches of duty that occurred in response to the 999 call.
"It is particularly heartbreaking for Ms Paterson's family to know that an emergency response team was in very close proximity to her but unable to give her the crucial treatment she needed.
"The emergency crews eventually arrived 102 minutes after the first 999 call – but even then there was nobody senior enough on hand to administer the treatment that Ms Paterson needed.
"It is imperative that people in Ms Paterson's condition are treated as quickly as possible – even seconds can make a huge difference, let alone over an hour and a half.
"The emergency services had been made abundantly aware of the seriousness of her condition yet failed on several levels to handle the situation in accordance with their own guidelines.
"But for these failings and contraventions, Ms Paterson would have received appropriate medical treatment sooner, would have been taken to A&E sooner, and consequently would not have suffered the injuries she did.
"Following Ms Paterson's case, it has been acknowledged that the way the high-risk address register was operated needed to be radically overhauled – we endorse any review and improvement to this system which was clearly at the heart of the failings in this case.
"We appreciate the London Ambulance Service's admission of liability for the failings and we will now be working to secure a care package that will allow Ms Paterson to live in as much comfort as possible, and will afford her family some degree of peace of mind."
Paterson's mother, Eleanor Paterson, of Warkworth, Northumberland, said: "We welcome the admission of liability as a significant step towards ensuring Caren will continue to receive the care, treatment and specialist attention she will need for the rest of her life, but nothing will return our daughter to the way we knew her.
"The thought of an ambulance crew sitting waiting while my daughter lay in her flat as her condition went from serious to life-threatening, causing irreparable damage to her brain, is still shocking.
"Although I appreciate fully that the emergency services have guidelines in place, I now know that there were further procedures that should have been followed and, if they had been, my daughter would have received the treatment she needed."
The London Ambulance Service admitted 11 separate breaches of duty that contributed to Paterson's injuries, including failing to comply with hospital trust policies, failing to recognise there was no danger at the flat, and failing to assess the life-threatening nature of Paterson's condition.
A London Ambulance Service spokesman said: "We would like again to offer our sincere apologies to Dr Caren Paterson and to her family.
"We carried out a detailed investigation into the circumstances of the incident and we have accepted liability for the shortcomings in the care that was provided on 27 October 2007.
"Dr Paterson is bringing a claim for compensation against the service and we hope that the legal representatives can now work together to find a resolution."
This article is courtesy of theguardian.
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Seven patients implanted with defective hip replacements at a US hospital are suing the HSE for damages.
Seven patients implanted with defective hip replacements at a US hospital are suing the HSE for damages.
It arises from the global recall of two devices by DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, in 2010.
The HSE has confirmed that 56 patients - both public and private - who had hip surgery at the Mid-Western Regional Orthopaedic Hospital in Croom were found to have had the implants concerned. And six patients – including referrals from outside the region – have had corrective surgery in Croom.
While DePuy has agreed to cover medical costs – including diagnostic tests and corrective surgery – and “out-of-pocket” expenses for travel and accommodation, it has not to date admitted liability as hundreds of Irish patients prepare to seek compensation in the courts.
Solicitor Peter McDonnell, an expert in medical negligence cases, is to host an information seminar on the DePuy recall at the Clarion Hotel this Wednesday (2pm). Patients, he said, deserved generous compensation from the company for ongoing medical complications and loss of earnings from reduced mobility.
The products concerned, he told the Leader, were marketed at relatively young patients and he had on his book many people formerly employed in construction who could “no longer earn a living”. Mr McDonnell said he was already representing up to 50 Limerick patients who had procedures in private hospitals in Cork, Waterford, Kilkenny and Tralee as well as a client who had the surgery done in Croom.
A spokesman for the HSE said around 3,500 of the implants were sold in Ireland.
“Figures from the UK have shown that up to 13% of patients with these implants have had to undergo a revision surgery within five years of their initial operation. Only a minority of patients who have had the DePuy ASR implant actually need further surgery. Fifty-six patients, public and private, operated on in Croom were identified as having the DePuy hip implant. There have been six revision surgeries and included in this figure are patients referred from other areas such as Cork and Waterford. Any correspondence received from solicitors in relation to ASR is copied to the State Claims Agency; currently there are seven claims,” the spokesman said
The Oireachtas health committee was told last year that the HSE had been named as defendants in about 100 DePuy hip cases.
Evidence was heard at the committee of ongoing pain and nerve and muscular damage suffered by the patients concerned. Patients have also expressed concern over the long-term effects - including possible organ damage - of cobalt and chromium leakage from DePuy products into the bloodstream.
Victims have been encouraged by that the company settled and compensated patients in the United States last year but there has been no admission of liability to date in Ireland.
Barrister Sara Antoniotti told the Oireachtas hearing last year she expected the company to mount a full defence.
This article is courtesy of Limerick Leader.
It arises from the global recall of two devices by DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, in 2010.
The HSE has confirmed that 56 patients - both public and private - who had hip surgery at the Mid-Western Regional Orthopaedic Hospital in Croom were found to have had the implants concerned. And six patients – including referrals from outside the region – have had corrective surgery in Croom.
While DePuy has agreed to cover medical costs – including diagnostic tests and corrective surgery – and “out-of-pocket” expenses for travel and accommodation, it has not to date admitted liability as hundreds of Irish patients prepare to seek compensation in the courts.
Solicitor Peter McDonnell, an expert in medical negligence cases, is to host an information seminar on the DePuy recall at the Clarion Hotel this Wednesday (2pm). Patients, he said, deserved generous compensation from the company for ongoing medical complications and loss of earnings from reduced mobility.
The products concerned, he told the Leader, were marketed at relatively young patients and he had on his book many people formerly employed in construction who could “no longer earn a living”. Mr McDonnell said he was already representing up to 50 Limerick patients who had procedures in private hospitals in Cork, Waterford, Kilkenny and Tralee as well as a client who had the surgery done in Croom.
A spokesman for the HSE said around 3,500 of the implants were sold in Ireland.
“Figures from the UK have shown that up to 13% of patients with these implants have had to undergo a revision surgery within five years of their initial operation. Only a minority of patients who have had the DePuy ASR implant actually need further surgery. Fifty-six patients, public and private, operated on in Croom were identified as having the DePuy hip implant. There have been six revision surgeries and included in this figure are patients referred from other areas such as Cork and Waterford. Any correspondence received from solicitors in relation to ASR is copied to the State Claims Agency; currently there are seven claims,” the spokesman said
The Oireachtas health committee was told last year that the HSE had been named as defendants in about 100 DePuy hip cases.
Evidence was heard at the committee of ongoing pain and nerve and muscular damage suffered by the patients concerned. Patients have also expressed concern over the long-term effects - including possible organ damage - of cobalt and chromium leakage from DePuy products into the bloodstream.
Victims have been encouraged by that the company settled and compensated patients in the United States last year but there has been no admission of liability to date in Ireland.
Barrister Sara Antoniotti told the Oireachtas hearing last year she expected the company to mount a full defence.
This article is courtesy of Limerick Leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)