Hospital blunders and clinical negligence of the kind exposed in the Stafford Hospital scandal are more widespread than feared, it was claimed yesterday.
Thirty-nine hospitals at 37 NHS trusts across the country are facing a total of 225 claims over poor patient care, the Sunday Mirror has found.
More than 75 per cent of the cases relate to pensioner neglect - but dozens of the alleged victims are children.
Several alleged blunders are reported to have contributed to patient deaths.
The cases are all being handled by Leigh Day, the law firm that brought many of the claims against Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust. Solicitor Emma Jones said: "What's truly shocking is how widespread these cases are, and the fact we're still receiving allegations from across the country.
"When we handled the cases at Stafford Hospital we suspected they weren't isolated incidents but we never imagined they could be so widespread."
Experts say the NHS may have to pay out tens of millions in compensation.
Just months ago 14 hospitals were put under review for poor standards following a probe by NHS England medical director Sir Bruce Keogh. His review was prompted by the Mid-Staffs scandal centred on Stafford Hospital over the needless deaths of up to 1,200 patients.
Now our report suggests the health service crisis may stretch further.
Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust in Essex faces 64 claims - more than a quarter of the total.
Watchdogs and MPs previously raised concerns over Basildon General Hospital, including weekend death rates 11 per cent higher than expected. Last year a court ordered the Trust to pay £350,000 in fines and costs over a legionella outbreak in which two patients died.
Mid-Staffs NHS Trust also faces 24 new cases. The Patients Association said: "Hospitals still need to do a lot more to ensure patient safety."
In the firing line
- Aintreee University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 1 claim
- Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust 34
- Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Hospitals Trust 2
- Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 1
- Basildon & Thurrock GeneralHospitals NHS Trust 64
- Bedford Hospital NHS Trust 1
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board 1
- Blackpool Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 1
- Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust 1
- Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust 3
- Ealing Hospital NHS Trust 1
- East Lancashire HospitalsNHS Trust 8
- East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 14
- Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust 4
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust 1
- Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 1
- Kingston Hospital NHS FoundationTrust 1
- Medway NHS Foundation Trust 1
- Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust 24
- Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust 1
- Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital 1
- Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 1
- South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust 1
- South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust 1
- Southport & Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust 1
- Surrey & Sussex Health Care NHS Trust 1
- Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 1
- The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust 10
- The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 1
- The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust 4
- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust 1
- University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust 1
- West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust 1
- Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust 1
- Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 33
- Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust 1.
Case study
Janice Chadwick is suing Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust claiming her mother Doris suffered "an awful last year" of her life due to lack of care in hospital.
Doris died aged 83 after suffering a hospitalacquired infection following her admission to a ward after a fall at home in Chadwell Heath, Essex.
Janice claims the grandmother was ferried "like a yo-yo" between King George's in Ilford and Queen's Hospital in Romford. She says staff neglected to change her dressings and "never really cared", and that Doris lost two stone over six months in hospital.
She says: "The overall care was appalling."
This article is courtesy from the Mirror.
A mother has won damages from an NHS hospital trust that refused to resuscitate her baby — leaving him to die in her arms.
Tracy Godwin, 34, was distraught as doctors left Tom to die after his condition deteriorated following his premature birth in March 2010.
She pleaded for help but the hospital ignored her express wishes — against its own guidelines. Tom fought for his life for 46 minutes before dying.
Nearly four years later, Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has settled her claim.
“I had many unanswered questions concerning my treatment and the death of my baby, which caused me to become severely depressed and unable to work,” said Ms Godwin.
“I was left alone, desperate and helpless to alleviate the suffering of my baby boy. I was given no guidance or warning on the hospital’s treatment of very premature births.”
Ms Godwin, an accounts assistant from Southend, became pregnant with her first child in November 2009. At 22 weeks, she experienced severe pain and was told at hospital that she had gone into labour. She gave birth three days later and was told her baby was unlikely to survive at 23 weeks.
Tom weighed one pound, was distressed and having difficulty breathing and she told medical staff everything should be done to keep him alive.
With no consultant present, staff refused to take him to the baby care unit and he soon. She was later informed that resuscitating her baby was against hospital policy.
While babies born at 23-25 weeks are routinely resuscitated, it is up to individual NHS Trusts to decide their policy on babies born at 22-23 weeks.
Southend Hospital does not resuscitate babies of this age but is required to take note of a patient’s express wishes. Ms Godwin said she was not informed of that policy.
She has since given birth to a daughter, Isla, who was born at 24 weeks.
Her lawyer, Johanne Turner, clinical negligence partner at BTMK, said: “This tragic case raises the issue of hospital policies on taking steps to resuscitate and save premature babies.
“Mothers must be adequately prepared and under no circumstances should they be abandoned in the most vulnerable of states.
“It has taken three years to secure a settlement for Tracy and while it will never replace the loss of her son, it was never about financial gain but more a relief that the hospital has admitted they failed to follow their own guidelines in place at the time relating to premature babies.”
Sue Hardy, Southend hospital’s chief nurse, said: “We offer our sincere condolences to Ms Godwin on the loss of her baby and are sorry that her experience of care did not meet the high standard we strive to provide.”
This article is courtesy from the Standard.
More than £16m has been spent in the past three years settling clinical negligence cases involving poor care at the district’s hospitals.
Latest figures show that between 2010 and 2013, £16.6m was paid to settle 280 clinical negligence claims against Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust, which runs Pinderfields, Pontefract and Dewsbury hospitals.
Mid Yorkshire pointed out that only a small minority of all patients treated at the hospitals made claims for negligence.
A spokeswoman said: “We see hundreds of patients every day and the vast majority tell us they are happy with their care.
“According to latest figures, around 95 per cent of patients are likely to recommend our services to their friends or family and only a small number ever need to make a claim.”
In the same period, £28m was paid for negligence claims at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs Leeds General Infirmary and St James’s Hospital, after 391 claims were lodged.
Payouts are made by the NHS Litigation Authority, which health service trusts pay to settle legal claims on their behalf.
The figures do not include non-clinical claims like as accidents on NHS premises.
The family of a 13-year-old California girl who was declared brain-dead after suffering complications from sleep apnea surgery has secured for her the feeding and breathing tubes for which they had been fighting.
Christopher Dolan, the attorney for the girl's family, said doctors inserted the gastric tube and tracheostomy tube Wednesday at the undisclosed facility where Jahi McMath was taken on 5 January.
The procedure was a success, Dolan said, and Jahi is getting the treatment that her family believes she should have received 28 days ago, when doctors at Children's Hospital Oakland first declared her brain-dead.
Jahi underwent tonsil surgery 9 December, then began bleeding heavily before going into cardiac arrest and being declared brain dead on 12 December.
Her mother has refused to believe Jahi is dead and went to court to prevent her daughter from being taken off a ventilator.
Jahi's uncle, Omari Sealey, said Monday that she is now being cared for at a facility that shares her family's belief that she still is alive. The new facility has "been very welcoming with open arms", Sealey said. "They have beliefs just like ours."
Neither Dolan nor the family would disclose the name or location of that facility, which took the eighth-grader after a weekslong battle by her family to prevent Children's Hospital Oakland from removing her from the breathing machine that has kept her heart beating.
But medical experts said the ventilator won't work indefinitely and caring for a patient whom three doctors have said is legally dead is likely to be challenging because – unlike someone in a coma – there is no blood flow or electrical activity in either her cerebrum or the brain stem that controls breathing.
The bodies of brain-dead patients kept on ventilators gradually deteriorate, eventually causing blood pressure to plummet and the heart to stop, said Dr Paul Vespa, director of neurocritical care at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has no role in McMath's care. The process usually takes only days but can sometimes continue for months, medical experts say.
"The bodies are really in an artificial state. It requires a great deal of manipulation in order to keep the circulation going," Vespa said.
Brain-dead people may look like they're sleeping, he added, but it's "an illusion based on advanced medical techniques".
Sealey, the girl's uncle, said Monday that Jahi's mother, Nailah Winkfield, is relieved her persistence paid off and "sounds happier". He criticized Children's Hospital for repeatedly telling Winkfield they did not need her permission to remove Jahi from the ventilator because the girl was dead.
Sealey told reporters Monday that Jahi traveled by ground from Children's Hospital to the unnamed facility and there were no complications in the transfer, suggesting she may still be in California.
The $55,000 in private donations the family has raised since taking the case public helped cover the carefully choreographed handoff to the critical care team and transportation to the new location, Sealey said.
"If her heart stops beating while she is on the respirator, we can accept that because it means she is done fighting," he said. "We couldn't accept them pulling the plug on her early."
Meanwhile, an advocacy group is facing sharp criticism for using Jahi's case to try to raise money.
The nonprofit Consumer noted in an email solicitation that it fights for patient safety for families like Jahi's and that it had drafted a proposed November ballot measure that would raise medical malpractice award limits in California.
Dolan, the family attorney, is a board member of Consumer Attorneys of California, the prime group funding the ballot initiative to lift the cap on pain and suffering awards. But he said he was dismayed that Consumer Watchdog used Jahi's name as a fundraising tool.
"Using Jahi's case as an example is wrong and that is not what this case is about," he said in a text message to the Associated Press.
Hospital spokesman Sam Singer also criticized the use of Jahi's case for fundraising, calling it "tasteless and thoughtless".
Consumer Watchdog executive director Carmen Balber said the funds were being solicited for the organization's patient safety program, not the political campaign, and none of the money would go to the ballot measure.
"We thought we were being clear," she said. "This email has been construed in ways we didn't expect."
Consumer Watchdog's Christmas Eve email to supporters prominently mentioned the Jahi McMath case to support the need for its advocacy work and for lifting the state's 38-year-old cap on medical malpractice awards.
"Hospitals like Children's actually have an incentive to let children like Jahi die," the email said. "If kids injured by medical negligence die, the most their families can recover is $250,000. … If children who are victims of medical negligence live, hospitals are on the hook for medical bills for life, which could be millions."
If it gets on November's ballot and passes, the Troy & Alana Pack Patient Safety Act would raise the cap on medical malpractice awards to about $1.2m, a limit that would increase based on inflation, said Bob Pack, chair of the campaign committee. He said the group has collected about 500,000 signatures and wants 300,000 more by 25 March to assure there are enough valid ones to qualify for the ballot.
This article is courtesy from The Guardian.
Dr Jane Hamilton warned the health board in writing that somebody could die in the mother-and-baby unit at St John's Hospital in Livingston. Two mothers let out of the unit later committed suicide.
Hamilton, who ran the unit, claims she was victimised after raising concerns, and refused to sign a severance agreement involving a six-figure settlement with NHS Lothian claiming it would gag her.
NHS Lothian insists it has not tried to gag the doctor and her right to be a whistleblower was specifically safeguarded.
The family of one of the mothers who committed suicide, Claire Donald, 37, is now suing NHS Lothian for medical negligence.
Her family back Hamilton, an experienced specialist perinatal psychiatrist, who has been suspended or off work with stress-related illness for four years.
First Minister Alex Salmond has defended the board, and said an independent investigation into the MBU had found no evidence to back Hamilton's allegations.
NHS Lothian medical director Dr David Farquharson said: "The confidentiality statement confirms that, for the avoidance of doubt, Dr Hamilton will not be prevented from making a 'protected disclosure'."
He added: "NHS Lothian has robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that staff feel able to raise any concerns and we actively encourage staff to highlight issues relating to patient safety."
But Hamilton said her lawyers advised her the health board's calling her clinical concerns employment grievances, which had to be withdrawn, was gagging.
She added: "The draft agreement would also have extended to my husband who is himself a senior consultant. He feels pretty aggrieved about that."
Rab Wilson, a former psychiatric nurse who uncovered errors surrounding 20 deaths in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran area, is outraged at what he sees as a clear bid to gag Hamilton, and has asked police to investigate.
Wilson won the Kay Carmichael Award for services to social justice. He said: "The Public Interest Disclosure Act makes such gagging illegal, when issues such as patient safety are involved."
He has seen the agreement Hamilton was asked to sign. He added: "They had classified specific clinical concerns about patient care and safety, raised on precise dates, as employment grievances.
"The deal was that she had to withdraw these so-called grievances and not mention them again, thereby air-brushing from history Dr Hamilton's genuine concerns and complaints. A wee line elsewhere about protected disclosures doesn't change that."
He is now petitioning the Scottish Parliament to ban all confidentiality clauses from NHS settlements.
Dr Kim Holt is the paediatrician victimised after warning of serious failings at the Great Ormond Street clinic in London which sent Peter Connelly, Baby P, home two days before he died in 2007.
She founded the Patients First group to make the NHS more open and accountable.
This week, Holt wrote to Scottish Health Secretary Alex Neil, saying: "I urge you now to commission a fully independent and open inquiry into the treatment of staff raising concerns at NHS Lothian."
Neil said he had been "absolutely clear" with NHS boards that staff should be gagged over concerns about patient safety.
He had written to all Boards to say confidentiality clauses must not suppress the reporting of concerns
Neil added: "NHS Lothian has stated publicly the contract referred to does not preclude any disclosure of concerns about practice. The Scottish Government will seek further reassurance on this."
Neil Findlay, Lothian MSP and Labour's spokesman on health, said: "NHS Lothian appear to have learned nothing about how to deal with employees. Last year's report into the bullying culture of senior management should have brought about change but now we see a doctor whose motivation is clearly the care and wellbeing of patients being treated as though she herself is on trial."
This article is courtesy from The Herald.
Lawyers were ordered to pay almost £1m in compensation to disappointed clients last year owing to failures in no win, no fee agreements, according to figures released by the legal ombudsman.
The agreements have attracted so many complaints that Adam Sampson, the chief ombudsman, has questioned whether solicitors should be allowed to use the phrase to market their services.
Withdrawal of legal aid for many types of civil cases has resulted in conditional fee agreements – usually advertised as no win, no fee – becoming a common means of pursuing personal injury, unfair dismissal or medical negligence cases. They are sold on the basis that a lawyer will not take a fee if the claim fails. In most cases, if the claim is successful the lawyer charges a success fee.
Such agreements are supposed to make legal services risk-free, but they frequently leave customers facing thousands of pounds of unexpected costs, according to the ombudsman's report. Sampson's office received about 600 complaints about them last year.
"The no win, no fee market has become increasingly aggressive, with many law firms competing for cases and sometimes prioritising sourcing a large number of customers over a careful selection process," the report says. "A business model which consistently overvalues the chances of success can drive lawyers into unethical practice in order to avoid financial meltdown. This report raises genuine questions as to whether the no win, no fee label should be used at all, " the report says.."
Between 1 November 2012 and 30 November 2013, the ombudsman ordered lawyers in England and Wales to pay out a total of £944,177 in compensation, fee reductions and costs to remedy errors after agreements went wrong.
In one of the worst cases, Paul Stacey, 42, was left to represent himself in court after a law firm pulled out of a no win, no fee agreement. He won his case but then received a claim for £24,000 from the firm for work it had supposedly carried out. The solicitors were denied their claim and instructed to pay compensation after threatening him with legal action.
The ombudsman's report says: "With access to legal aid diminishing in many areas of law, these services enable people who otherwise might not be able to [make] claims. But the no win, no fee model has played its part in fostering a culture of ambulance chasing and fraudulent claims which has inadvertently driven up insurance premiums.
"The legal ombudsman has begun to see cases where the fundamental promise which underpins the marketing of [these agreements] – that the consumer will not have to pay for losing cases – is being broken. People who have entered into no win, no fee agreements have been hit with significant and unexpected costs when cases have failed."
The report points out that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has warned about referring to conditional fee agreements as no win, no fee. It has said: "No win, no fee claims can be misleading because sometimes the client is liable for undisclosed costs, such as insurance, if they lose their case. That's unfair and can be financially damaging to a consumer."
Nicholas Fluck, president of the Law Society, said: "So-called no win, no fee was brought in by the government to fill the gaps left by its policy of removing some legal aid provision. No win, no fee solicitors are bringing justice to the masses for people denied legal aid. Solicitors working on conditional fee agreements take on significant risk with these often complex cases.
"The Law Society is pleased that the legal ombudsman agrees with us that solicitors need to be very clear with clients on their agreement terms and commends our model agreement. We agree that the MoJ's regulations covering damages-based agreements are a nightmare and the government needs to change them urgently."
This article is courtesy from The Guardian.
A former hedge fund boss is considering legal action after being “wrongly sectioned” in a maximum-security psychiatric ward.
Aaron Dover, 39, claims he was detained against his will for 10 days, physically restrained and forcibly injected with sedatives at Highgate Mental Health Centre.
Mr Dover, of Hampstead, was held after his wife became concerned for his well-being and called the NHS 111 out-of-hours number. Authorities feared he might be suicidal and theMetropolitan Police launched a helicopter search. He was having a coffee nearby.
He admitted being under pressure due to an employment dispute and said he had at times suffered from depression, but claimed the response was completely over the top: “I was brought into hospital by a manhunt of more than 10 police cars, police with dogs trawling Hampstead Heath, and a police helicopter, while I was out quietly having a coffee on Flask Walk.
“I was hunted down like a nuclear suicide bomber rather than someone out for Sunday breakfast.
“I was held against my will with patients who were terrifying. Some of them were quite aggressive and there were frequent fights. It’s basically the Hannibal Lecter ward ofHighgate.
“I wanted to leave every second of every minute. I never wanted to set foot in that place and the whole thing was just an atrociously awful nightmare.”
After being detained last September, the IT consultant was taken to Highgate Mental Health Centre, where doctors suspected he had a delusional disorder. He was later sectioned.
He admits he was under intense stress but believes his sectioning was based on hearsay and not enough was done to verify his account of events.
On October 2, following a five-hour hearing, a tribunal found that it was “not satisfied that he was suffering from a mental disorder”. Mr Dover was freed immediately with no further treatment required.
He is considering legal action against Camden and Islington NHS foundation trust over unlawful detention, medical negligence and personal injury. Solicitor José Grayson of D H Law, who represented Mr Dover at the tribunal, said: “The hospital had simply failed to properly investigate what Aaron was saying. It is now some months since his discharge. If they were right about the fact that he had a serious psychotic illness then he would be back in hospital.”
A spokesman for Highgate Mental Health Centre, which is run by Camden and Islington Trust, said: “The tribunal makes a decision on whether further detention is warranted based on the assessment to date, and their own interviews.
“The decision that no further detention is needed does not make the original detention for assessment wrong or illegal.”
