Blackburn widower to sue hospital for ‘negligence’ after wife’s death

 A widower is to sue Royal Blackburn Hospital following the death of his wife.

Maureen McDonald waited hours to see a hospital doctor after she fell ill during chemotherapy treatment.

Her husband Alan said: “I’m suing the hospital for medical negligence. Cancer patients can’t go through this.”

He said that she had needed antibioltics urgently.

“They have a one hour window to survive. It’s the pits.”

Mrs McDonald’s death prompted a serious untoward incident review at Royal Blackburn Hospital after her husband Alan raised concerns about her care.

The report produced by the hospital trust found: 

• Two nurses had failed to recognise how ill she was.
• The Medical Assessment Unit, which had been expecting her, was not told she had been taken to the A&E department instead.
• She only saw a doctor after a delay of almost three hours when Mr McDonald called the chemotherapy unit himself.
• She was given penicillin when she was allergic to the drug.

The trust which runs the hospital said a number of actions had been implemented following the review to recognise similar patients.

Mr McDonald said he was speaking out after two other cancer patients had also suffered from miscommunication problems when taken for treatment at the hospital.

Mrs McDonald, 59, of Honeyhole, Blackburn, had been diagnosed with brain and lung cancer last December.

Just weeks later, after starting chemotherapy, she complained of sickness and chest pain and an ambulance was booked to take her to the Medical Assessment Unit at the hospital.

The report said when paramedics arrived they decided her symptoms were so serious she should be taken to A&E.

However staff in the emergency department failed to make cancer specialists at the hospital aware that Mrs McDonald had been admitted, and because the seriousness of her condition had not been recognised, there was a delay in prescribing her antibiotics, the report added.

Mr McDonald said: “They kept her in A&E for hours, in that time a senior staff nurse missed vital signs.

“She never received antibiotics or pain relief.

“I had to contact the cancer unit myself. The cancer nurse wanted to know why she was in A&E, not the medical assessment unit.

“The cancer specialist came rushing down and got her straight into resus.”

The report said that when the oncologist came down to A&E, the consultant in the emergency department did not have Mrs McDonald’s notes available, but the two consultants agreed that antibiotics should be prescribed.

Mrs McDonald was given Tazocin, but she had a penicillin allergy, and doctors did not check whether the drug would be suitable before administering it, the report said.

Mr McDonald said: “She had an allergy wristband on, but they never asked her what she was allergic to.”

Mrs McDonald was later transferred to the Medical Assessment Unit, but she passed away in the early hours of the following morning.

The report into her death has made several recommendations, including that feedback should be given to the triage nurse regarding the recognition of seriously unwell patients, and nurses should be made aware of the importance of early treatment.

It said: “It is unlikely that even if Mrs M had received antibiotics within one hour of her attendance at the emergency department that she would have survived however it is very difficult to know for sure.”

Mr McDonald, who is now taking legal action against the Trust, said he was very concerned that two other patients had died under similar circumstances since his wife’s death.

Blackburn Coroner’s Court has previously heard how retired milkman Roy Wildman, who lived in Lime Street, Nelson, died in May after it took two days for staff in A&E to inform cancer doctors of his arrival when it should have been done immediately.

Another inquest heard that Shirley Banks, 67, who lived in Constable Avenue, Burnley died within a few days of Mrs McDonald.

She had been diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus and was undergoing chemotherapy when she was taken to hospital as an emergency admission. She died on New Year’s Eve.

Blackburn coroner Michael Singleton said he would be making a report to East Lancashire NHS Hospitals Trust relating to the triage of patients suffering from cancer, as he believed there remained a risk of further fatalities following an inquest into Mrs Banks’s death.

Mr McDonald said: “I was told this would never, ever happen again, because procedures are now in place.”

Chris Pearson, Chief Nurse at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust said: “We are very sorry about Mr McDonald’s loss and our sympathies remain with him.

“We have met with Mr McDonald regarding the care his wife received at the Trust and the issues that he has raised with us are not the same as those he has indicated.

“A number of actions have and are being implemented to ensure the issues Mr McDonald raised with us do not happen again - this includes education and change of procedures within the Emergency Department so patients like Mrs McDonald are recognised and highlighted early for IV antibiotic treatment.”

This article is courtesy of the Lancashire Telegraph.

How much am I owed for my medical negligence case?

Every healthcare provider on the planet has a duty to fulfil. Whether performing a complex surgical procedure or a routine dental exam, they are expected to treat their patients with the best care possible in accordance to their own abilities and widely accepted medical practice standards. Failing to do so is a breach of duty known as medical (or clinical) negligence.

When medical negligence occurs, the patient is owed monetary compensation. However, before this is awarded, the following three factors must be demonstrated:

• Medical / clinical negligence
• Causation (i.e., a link between the negligence and the resulting complications)
• Damages

Assuming that medical negligence has, indeed, taken place, and that this can be linked to damages suffered on behalf of the plaintiff, then you may well have a bona fide medical negligence suit on your hands. Knowing that you have a case is one thing, but how does one go about determining how much they are owed?

The answer—as you might have guessed—is complicated. This is the territory of solicitors. They examine the case and come up with a figure that is based upon their own calculations and (perhaps more importantly) prior precedent. If courts have awarded a certain amount in the past for a similar case, then there’s reason to expect that a similar amount could be awarded again.

Of course, the defendant’s solicitors are aware of precedent as well. They also know that the number of medical negligence claims in the UK have risen by 80% since 2008. If this is a clear-cut case of medical negligence, then they’ll probably push to settle out of court—perhaps for slightly less than precedent dictates. If the defendant accepts, compensation changes hands and the case is settled without the rigmarole of a drawn-out court case.

Calculating medical negligence compensation

So let’s move on to the calculation. A typical medical negligence suit will take the following two types of damages into account to calculate the amount of compensation owed:

General damages

Operating Theatre (PD)General damages are the most tangible damages in a medical negligence case, but they’re also the most difficult to attach a price tag to. What is the market value of a limb? How much is a person’s wellbeing really worth? We’re naturally reluctant to set a price on an individual’s life or health—it seems petty. However, this is precisely what needs to happen if compensation is going to be determined.

Suffice it to say, the general damages calculated in a medical negligence suit are going to depend on the severity of the injury that was sustained as a result of the malpractice as well as the pain that accompanies it. In so many words, the general damages reflect the pain and suffering that the patient endured.

As mentioned earlier, the amount of compensation likely to be awarded depends to a large extent on legal precedent. If you would like an approximation of roughly how much you could expect to be awarded, the best thing you can do is review previous cases that are similar to your own. This is, at least, where your solicitor will begin. However, if they feel that there are extenuating circumstances or further complications in your case, then they may well push for a higher figure.

Special damages

The word ‘special’ brings the abstract to mind, and many people understandably assume that special damages are more difficult to nail down and calculate. As it turns out, the opposite is the case, and special damages (which are sometimes referred to as economic damages) can be calculated with relative ease.

This is the economic damages that the person endured as a result of the injury. Any extra money that they were forced to spend as a result of the clinical negligence is lumped into this category. With that in mind, special damages can include the following:

• Earnings lost because the person could not work during their extended recovery period.
• Potential earnings lost because the person is no longer capable of carrying out their former occupation.
• Travel expenses incurred travelling because of the injury or malpractice (e.g., travel to another hospital).

Putting it all together

If you can prove that medical negligence did occur, then you may well be entitled to compensation for damages as outlined above. However, as you can see, coming up with an exact figure is beyond complicated. That’s why it’s important to contact a solicitor that specialises in medical negligence cases as early in the process as possible.

This article is courtesy of Olivia Brean, writing on a freelance basis for Mintons UK, a law firm whose first priority is to ensure that clients understand how the law works and what they can expect when they look to make clinical negligence claims.

£6.7m award to boy whose life was ruined by ‘devastating’ errors at Portsmouth hospital

A young boy who received catastrophic brain damage due to mistakes made by a Portsmouth hospital has been given a settlement worth more than £6.7m.

At the age of four, the boy suffered devastating brain injuries after staff at St Mary’s Hospital in Milton failed to act quickly enough to spot that he had a serious medical condition.

As a result, he had a cardiac arrest which led to brain damage and left him with severe disabilities.

The child, now aged 12, and whose identity has been protected by a court order, has no independent movements, is reliant on carers 24 hours a day and can only communicate through eye moments and the use of specialist technology.

Lawyers from BL Claims Solicitors pursued a clinical negligence claim on his behalf, alleging there were delays in performing a chest x-ray to diagnose that the boy had a condition called congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

The condition is caused by the failure of the diaphragm to fuse properly while the child is developing in the womb, allowing organs to move from the abdomen up into the chest cavity.

It was also argued that there were delays in inserting a nasogastric tube to decompress the stomach and a delay in summoning specialists when he went into cardiac arrest.

On July 14 in the Royal Courts of Justice, His Honour Judge Moloney QC, sitting as a judge in the High Court, approved a settlement negotiated between the claimant and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs St Mary’s.

The settlement, estimated to exceed £6.7m, is made up of a lump sum of £3.2m plus annual payments of £265,000 a year until the claimant is aged 18 and then £305,000 a year for the rest of his life.

The money will be used to pay for the specialist care the claimant needs.

Dr John White, of BL Claims Solicitors, acting for the family, said: ‘This significant settlement reflects the devastating consequences of the mistakes made at St Mary’s Hospital and the severity of the claimant’s injuries.

‘If the condition of congenital diaphragmatic hernia had been diagnosed more promptly and staff had acted more quickly to deal with its implications, the outcome would have been very different.

‘The claimant needs round-the-clock care for the rest of his life and this settlement will help to ensure that he receives that.’

The boy’s parents said in a statement: ‘The very tragic part is that if the doctors had listened or taken any notice of what we kept saying as parents then this event would have been easily avoided.

‘Instead our son’s life has been completely ruined. He will never go to his school prom, enjoy playing on the beach or have fun kicking a football around with his friends.

‘One message we would like give to all parents is please always trust your instincts when your child is unwell.

‘If you believe that something is wrong then insist that action is taken by the doctors.

‘Nothing will ever make up for the life that has been taken away from him.

‘Our son and his enormous daily battle are an inspiration to all that know or have met him. This is an absolute tragedy caused by mistakes that should never have happened.’

The claimant was seen at St Mary’s in the early hours of September 30, 2006 after developing pains in his stomach and admitted at around 7am.

Following an original diagnosis, he went into cardiac arrest and was transferred to Southampton General Hospital following being stabalised and underwent surgery to repair the defect in his diaphragm.

The case was initially defended by the trust and had been due to go to trial to decide on the issue of liability in the autumn of 2012.

Judgment was entered in the claimant’s favour in October 2012, and the hearing on July 14 approved the amount of the settlement negotiated between the parties.

This article is courtesy of Portsmouth News.

Clinical negligence claims up 18%

Clinical negligence claims went up almost 18% over the last year despite changes to the law banning no-win no-fee agreements , an NHS review has found.

The spike was due to new solicitors entering the market to chase lucrative no-win no-fee claims before new rules came into effect in April 2013, the NHS Litigation Authority said.

Its annual review found that the number of claims in England went up by 1,816 between March 2013 and March this year - from 10,129 to 11,945.

The body has set aside a provisional £10.5 billion to settle claims which have been notified to the NHS but are not yet resolved and claims that have been resolved over the last financial year.

A spokeswoman said: "A rise in clinical negligence claims by almost 18% over the last year is primarily due to new claimant solicitor firms entering the clinical negligence market and as a result of receiving significant numbers of claims funded by historic no-win no-fee agreements signed before April 1 2013.

"Until March 2013, these agreements allowed claimant solicitors to charge up to a 100% success fee on their costs if a claim was successful.

"Now, claimant solicitors can no longer double their fees. However, the NHS is still receiving claims funded under old style no-win no-fee agreements signed before the law changed."

The NHS Litigation Authority, which indemnifies NHS organisations in England against claims, said that almost half (44%) of clinical claims where care had not been negligent were settled without paying damages, saving the NHS over £1.3 billion.

It also boasted a further £75 million in savings over the last year achieved by "robustly challenging excessive costs" charged by claimant solicitors.

Chief executive Catherine Dixon said: "It is our priority to ensure that when a patient has been harmed by the NHS they are, to the extent we are able, compensated for the harm they suffer.

"However, we experienced a significant rise in the number of claims being brought against the NHS where the care provided was not negligent.

"We were able to resolve these claims without payment, saving the NHS more than £1.3 billion."

This article is courtesy of Yahoo! News.

Grandmother wins £250,000 after botched hip operation left her leg pointing in the wrong direction

A grandmother who was left with her foot pointing 90 degrees in the wrong direction after a surgeon botched her hip operation has won £250,000 in damages.

Brenda Gorst developed a life-threatening infection and her leg was left shorter following blunders by a consultant at Abergele Hospital in North Wales.

Since her surgery in October 2007, the 73-year-old has endured six major operations to try to correct the problem and faces further procedures to rebuild her femur, hip and pelvis.

Mrs Gorst began suffering aches and pains in her hips in her 60s, and was recommended for hip replacement surgery.

She said: 'When I woke up from the operation, my leg was black and I was in agony. It took some time to realise something had gone badly wrong.'

The pain and swelling in her leg did not subside, and a revision operation was proposed.

She said: 'After the second operation, it became obvious that my right foot had started to point east. They tried to put my foot straight using sandbags.'

During one of the operations, Mrs Gorst, who now lives in Newton-le-Willows in Merseyside but used to live in Rhos-on-Sea in Wales, contracted an infection.

She claims that when she was sent for a second opinion and an X-ray, the new consultant was visibly shocked at what he saw.

Mrs Gorst said: 'I was in acute pain, the bruising and swelling was terrible and my leg was twisted in entirely the wrong direction.

'At that point they thought I had a flesh-eating disease. They told me I could be dead in three days. It wasn’t a flesh-eating disease, but it was still a vicious infection.

'My leg is virtually useless. I’ve gone from someone who was active to someone who is unable to do many of the things I used to take for granted.'

The hip replacement has since been removed but her leg bone is now fused to the pelvis, shortening Mrs Gorst’s leg by four inches.

She won damages following a legal battle with the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board.

Her lawyer Daniel Lee, of Slater & Gordon, said: 'Her mobility and activity are dramatically reduced as a result of the operation which was meant to give her a new lease of life.'

Professor Matthew Makin, executive medical director at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, apologised for the distress caused to Mrs Gorst.

He said: 'On behalf of the health board, I am sorry that the care Mrs Gorst received at the time fell short of the standards she deserved.

'We aim to provide excellent care and have looked carefully at this case to make sure mistakes are learned from and cannot be repeated.'

This article is courtesy of the Daily Mail.

Hospital apologises for failings after schoolboy died on his 13th birthday

Hospital bosses have apologised for their care of a talented young footballer who died of meningitis on his 13th birthday.

Thomas Smith, from Hednesford, near Cannock, was nicknamed Ronnie by friends who compared his soccer skills to those of Cristiano Ronaldo.

But he fell ill with meningitis during a family holiday to Wales – and died on May 29 last year after being given paracetemol instead of antibiotics.

A coroner yesterday condemned Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr Tydfil over the error as the teenager’s inquest ended.

Christopher Woolley said: “The failure to administer antibiotics amounts to a gross failure of care.

“Antibiotics should have been given without delay. Where meningitis is suspected it’s essential antibiotics are given immediately. The need for basic medical attention in this form was obvious. The risk of giving unnecessary medication was outweighed by the risk of Thomas having bacterial meningitis.”

Mr Woolley said he was also concerned about “further deaths” at Prince Charles Hospital and ordered a report.

But he said it was not a case of “neglect” and, even if Thomas had been given antibiotics, he would probably have still died.

Mr Woolley recorded a conclusion of death by natural causes.

The inquest earlier heard Thomas complained of six tell-tale signs of meningitis, including a headache and a stiff neck.

But doctors failed to diagnose the illness and did not give him antibiotics for more than four hours.

He was seen by Dr Kwong-Tou Yip and consultant paediatrician Dr Ezzat Afifi, who both gave him paracetomal.

The inquest heard both Dr Yip and Dr Afifi had “failed in their duty of care” for Thomas.

After the hearing at Cardiff Coroner’s Court, Cwm Taf University Health Board – which runs the hospital – said it accepted it had failed the teenager.

Chief executive Allison Williams said: “I would like to extend my sincere apologies to the parents of Thomas George Smith for the loss of their son. This is an extremely sad case and we deeply regret there were failings in the care Thomas received at Prince Charles Hospital.

“As noted during the inquest, the Health Board undertook an investigation which identified lessons learned and recommendations to ensure this will never happen again. A number of changes have already been made to address the failings identified.

“Following the conclusion of the inquest, the Health Board will now consider the coroner’s findings and continue to implement the changes required to address any failings in service.”

This article is courtesy of the Birmingham Mail.

Care of the elderly – a medical negligence time bomb?

A report commissioned by Age UK and the Royal College of Surgeons, ‘Access all Ages’, which is a follow up to their initial one in 2012, reveals that many elderly people are being refused elective surgery despite such surgery being key to their quality of life. In another report, recent figures suggest that 30% of patients are responsible for 70% of NHS spending.
 
The majority are people with long term health issues, many of whom are elderly with multiple, chronic conditions. Both reports suggest that many of our elderly are caught in a downward spiral of health deterioration with the health and social care systems either unwilling or unable to help them. The management of chronic illness, in particular, presents both the NHS and the social care system with a dilemma – how to prevent the ‘revolving door’ syndrome where patients are admitted to hospital, stay beyond when is medically required, are discharged home where care is inadequate and then find themselves back in hospital.
 
NHS heading for crisis
 
The Health Select Committee (chaired by Dr Sarah Wollaston) has warned about the impending crisis facing people with long term conditions, many of whom are elderly, if NHS budget cuts start to bite before a proper community care programme is implemented. As medical improvements enable those with chronic conditions to live longer, including the elderly, there is an acknowledgement that the way in which their care is managed will have to change if the NHS is not to be overwhelmed. The statistics are alarming: 70% of NHS spending is taken up by approximately 30% of patients who represent around two thirds of outpatients and take up 77% of hospital beds.  In addition, if surgery is being refused on the basis of age then even more elderly patients will find themselves in hospital when they can no longer cope at home.
 
Budget cuts threaten community health care
 
Although the motivation behind the launch of the Better Care Fund next year is to improve the cooperation between the health and social care systems in order to deliver a more joined up service, with the intention of keeping individuals with long term conditions out of hospital, the debate about funding continues to rage. The Select Committee estimates that at least £4bn will need to be found by 2016 to cope with the rising tide of those with chronic conditions – which helps to give a sense of perspective to what the £3.8bn Better Care Fund will be under pressure to deliver. The social care system does not have adequate funds to cope with the number of elderly people relying on their services at the moment, let alone in the future, which is why so many are ending up unnecessarily in the health system.
 
More collaboration – and more funding
 
The general consensus is that greater collaboration is needed between GPs, community health services and specialists in deciding a care plan for each individual. This is encapsulated by NHS England initiative ‘The House of Care’ which is designed as a framework to enhance the quality of life for the elderly and those with long term health issues. At its core is the need to monitor and implement best practice so that the latest clinical improvements can be put into practice; and the implementation of individual care programmes so that patients and their carers learn to manage their own condition more effectively. However, as with all these initiatives, the devil is in the funding – with ongoing cut backs and shortfalls, all these ideas will struggle to take root.
 
This article is courtesy of Jeanette Whyman, a specialist medical negligence solicitor with Wright Hassall comments “Care of the elderly is reaching crisis point: there is much talk and a multitude of proposed initiatives – but all run up against the same problem – who’s going to pay for it? Improvements in how people are physically looked after in hospital are welcome but this doesn’t solve the issue of where to send them once they no longer need hospital treatment. The problem is only set to get worse: if greater longevity is not matched by a will to ensure that quality of life is maintained through surgery and proper back-up then the outlook, for those facing old age, is pretty miserable. The likelihood of the health service facing increased numbers of medical negligence claims from elderly people and their relatives is virtually guaranteed”