NHS negligence kills baby

Even spinning like a top could not quite cover this one up

A newborn baby became the youngest victim of MRSA in Britain when he died in hospital after contracting the virulent superbug, a coroner ruled yesterday. Luke Day was only 36 hours old when he died, though he may have been saved if medical staff had followed procedures and given him special care, an inquest into his death was told. An attempt by doctors to resuscitate him failed after he was found lifeless in a cot beside his mother on the maternity ward at Ipswich Hospital in February 2005. An internal inquiry revealed that staff had failed to recognise signs that Luke could have been ill up to 16 hours before his death.

Specialists said they could not be sure MRSA was the cause of death, but Peter Dean, the Suffolk coroner, said that on the balance of probabilities Luke had died as a result of contracting it. Staff at the hospital were unable to find the source of the bug, despite carrying out extensive inquiries.

Luke’s mother, Glynis Day, now 19, a kitchen assistant from Woodbridge, Suffolk, attended the hearing with Luke’s father, Kevin Fenton, 26. They criticised the hospital’s failure to detect warning signs. “I think it is disgusting,” Ms Day said. Mr Fenton said that hearing the details of how Luke died “makes me sick”.

Marion Malone, who conducted a postmortem examination at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, which found MRSA in Luke’s lungs, heart and spleen, told the hearing that she believed his death had been caused by septicaemia due to bacterial infection.

The inquest heard how Luke should have been tested for possible infections after staff noticed that his temperature was low, that he had low blood-sugar levels and he appeared “lethargic and slightly floppy”. Tests later revealed that his blood contained MRSA — methicillin-re-sistant staphylococcus aureus — as well as a less dangerous form ofstaphylococcus.

Peter Wilson, a consultant microbiologist at University College Hospital, London, who analysed Luke’s blood samples, said the balance of probability was that Luke’s death was caused by the bacteria. But he added that he could not say for sure if the MRSA strain was responsible or whether death was caused by septicaemia or toxins in the blood caused by the bacteria.

The coroner asked him: “Are you saying that there were signs that should have triggered referral and it would appear these signs were not picked up so Luke therefore did not have the benefit of an infection screen? “Is it fair to say that his chances would have been better had protocol been followed? [That] we don’t know if the outcome would have been different, but [that] Luke would have had a better chance?” Dr Wilson replied: “Yes, that is correct. It all depends on whether the signs that were present should have been spotted.” He added that Luke could have been treated with antibiotics if infection was suspected, which could have saved him by preventing the septicaemia from spreading.

The inquest heard how Luke weighed a healthy 7lb 7oz when born naturally at 6.53am on February 2, 2005. Staff had no concerns about his condition, but then found he was “grunting”, had low glucose levels in his blood and a lower than normal temperature at 2.10am the next day. Jane Gosling, the senior midwife, was later attending to Ms Day when she noticed that Luke was cold. He was immediately transferred for resuscitation but was declared dead 30 minutes later. The internal hospital inquiry report said there were deviations from clinical guidelines and that a paediatrician should have been called to examine Luke because of his low temperature and blood-sugar levels. It added that some of the clinical guidelines were ambiguous, but that there was “no overarching coordination of Luke’s care”.

Source







What a marvellous miracle! -- this baby survived

Healthy Baby Born After Prenatal Screening Falsely Showed he "Died". Baby boy miraculously survived womb-scraping procedure to remove its body

A prenatal screening test given to a UK woman in early pregnancy showed her baby had died, and the next day she underwent a procedure to remove the child's body from the womb. Three weeks later, however, she discovered her baby was alive and healthy, in a miraculous escape from failed technology. Jake Brown was born Feb. 24 at St. John's Hospital in Livingston, healthy and untouched by the trauma of his early development, The Telegraph reported March 7. His mother, Julie Brown, 29, said "The thought of them trying to get rid of a perfectly healthy baby makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, but I've got to move forward now."

The hospital had conducted a scan on Mrs. Brown at five and a half weeks gestation and could not find a heart beat or signs of growth. She was told the child had died and scheduled for a dilation and curettage procedure the next day. Somehow, her baby survived. ""The hospital has explained to me exactly what went wrong (with the diagnosis)," Mrs. Brown said. "The baby's sac hadn't changed size, but the baby had. The woman carrying out the scan didn't notice this and she thought I'd miscarried."

Errors in prenatal testing are far more common than many people realize. While more and more parents are depending on technology to identify potential health problems in their unborn children, many are not aware of the significant inaccuracy rates in prenatal screening. Abortion of the child is most often the result, even though in many cases scans are inconclusive or show only an increased possibility of health problems.

Down's syndrome is one of the most common pre-natal diagnoses to lead to abortion--but studies show screening tests for Down's are inaccurate up to 40 percent of the time. A recent Canadian study found more natural differences between the genetic code of individuals than previous researchers had thought existed, leading to greater difficulty in establishing a "normal" genetic code as a basis for evaluating pre-natal scans. Published in the journal Nature, the report suggested that prenatal screening may incorrectly diagnose genetic differences as "defects".

While the Browns don't intend to pursue legal action against the hospital, the couple said the mistake caused pain and trauma to the whole family. "They booked me in for an operation to remove the baby and we were all devastated,' Mrs. Brown said. "We then had to explain to my children Sarah and Leon that the baby had gone to heaven. My husband and the children were in floods of tears."

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************