Showing posts with label MRSA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MRSA. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Hospital sued over MRSA

A Grandmother who contracted MRSA while in hospital has launched a damages action at the Court of Session.

No doubt the Health Service's indemnity insurance scheme will kick into full swing and try to kill off the claim ... and use any means to do so ...

The Herald reports :

Grandmother sues hospital over MRSA

BRIAN HORNE January 16 2008

A grandmother yesterday launched an attempt to sue a hospital where she contracted the MRSA bug while recovering from an operation.

Elizabeth Miller, 71, is seeking £30,000 in damages at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

The action is being seen as a test case. Mrs Miller's solicitor, Cameron Fyfe, said other cases waiting in the wings could end up costing the health service millions.

However, lawyers for Greater Glasgow Health Board asked judge Lady Clark to dismiss the action, because Mrs Miller's claims were not detailed enough to pin the blame on them.

Mrs Miller of 8 Maxwell Place, Kilsyth, was found to have contracted MRSA while recovering from a heart operation in Glasgow Royal Infirmary in October, 2001.

She claims that she probably picked up the potentially deadly organism in the hospital ward and blames staff for not washing their hands thoroughly.

Court papers lodged on her behalf claim: "If the hospital's hand hygiene policy had been implemented, enforced and adhered to, Mrs Miller would not have become infected with MRSA."

Greater Glasgow NHS Board, which is contesting the action, denies any breach of its "duty of care" towards its patient and says she could have been carrying the infection before being admitted to hospital.

As the six-day legal argument got under way yesterday, Mr Fyfe said: "People might think it is a shame the health service has to pay out money but many of those affected see legislation as a last option and a method of encouraging health boards to clean up hospitals."

Mrs Miller was admitted to the hospital on October 18, 2001, for an aortic valve replacement. The operation took place the following day.

On October 28 the consultant surgeon found the wound was infected and later tests revealed MRSA.

Mrs Miller says that after she returned from the operating theatre at least 13 members of the hospital staff were involved in "hands on" treatment.

She claims that an inspection the following month, after an MRSA outbreak had affected nine other patients, revealed a lack of soap and paper towels.

Dust levels on the ward were also noted to be high and some equipment was described as dirty. There had been previous complaints about the standard of cleaning there, claims Mrs Miller.

The health board claims the precise role of cleaning in the control of hospital bugs is unknown. It has also told the court that organising cleaning and hygiene and dealing with outbreaks of infections are matters of judgment, which was exercised properly.

After the MRSA was detected, Mrs Miller needed treatment with powerful anti-biotics and a further operation.

If Lady Clark allows the case to continue, the Court of Session could hear from Mrs Miller in person at a later date about the effects of her ordeal. She was not in court yesterday.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Borders General Hospital in 100K medical negligence award to MRSA victim

Borders General hospital - known to some in the Scottish Borders as a 'butchers shop with a one way ticket to death' and to others as a life saver, is to pay an award of more than £100,000 to a victim of a quad bike accident in August 1997, who then contracted the MRSA infection at the Hospital who failed to treat it in time, necessitating the amputation of the patient's leg.

Ten years on after being forced to take the case to Court - a terrible indictment of both the Hospitals conduct in this matter, and the legal system ....

BBC News reports :

Amputation man awarded £100,000

A Borders farmer who had his leg amputated below the knee after becoming infected with MRSA has been awarded more than £100,000 by a sheriff.

Michael McColm, from Fairnilee, Galashiels, was injured when his quad bike overturned in August 1997.

He took Borders General Hospital NHS Trust to court over his treatment.

A sheriff ruled that "on the balance of probabilities" he would not have had his leg amputated but for negligence in failing to treat his MRSA infection.

Mr McColm was admitted to Borders General Hospital on 18 August, 1997 and was diagnosed with a broken leg.

NHS Borders notes the court judgment and will consider the details contained in this lengthy and complex report - NHS Borders statement

It was manipulated under anaesthetic, put in plaster and, three days later, a metal rod was inserted.

However, by 6 October a bacteriology report found a heavy growth of MRSA from the wound.

A week later a decision was made not to admit Mr McColm for intravenous antibiotics as his wound appeared to be "healthy and improving".

After that he was seen on several occasions and given various treatments - including further operations - but he remained in considerable pain.

By April 1998 his GP, unhappy at his lack of progress, referred Mr McColm to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh for a second opinion.

Prof Charles Court-Brown was immediately pessimistic that his right leg could be saved.

A below the knee amputation was carried out on 18 August, 1998 - exactly a year after Mr McColm's accident.

The court heard evidence about possible MRSA treatments

In defence evidence, Sheriff James Gilmour was told that administering intravenous antibiotics was not automatic in the treatment of MRSA.

He also heard a detailed defence of the other treatments which were offered.

However, the sheriff found failings in the treatment at Borders General Hospital offered by surgeons William Dennyson, John Driver-Jowitt and Christopher Tiemessen.

He ruled that the amputation of Mr McColm's right leg below the knee was caused by the "fault and negligence" of the NHS Trust.

The sheriff awarded him a total of more than £102,000.

NHS Borders issued a short statement on the ruling.

"NHS Borders notes the court judgment and will consider the details contained in this lengthy and complex report," it said.

"It is too early to make any comments about individual parts of the judgment."