|
Hospital agrees 'substantial' damages after Culford man claims spinal infection was missed for four years |
|
07 August 2007 |
A Culford man has been awarded 'a substantial sum' in damages in an out-of-court settlement after he claims that Addenbrookes hospital failed to treat his spinal infection properly for almost four years. He is now confined to a wheelchair and in constant pain.
A Culford man has been awarded 'a substantial sum' in damages in an out-of-court settlement after he claims that Addenbrookes hospital failed to treat his spinal infection properly for almost four years. He is now confined to a wheelchair and in constant pain.
John Ledger (77) was first referred to Addenbrookes by his GP in April 1999. He had been suffering from back pain, and an MRI scan showed he had an infection. He was admitted for treatment and placed on a course of antibiotics.
He was discharged after three weeks and the antibiotics continued until December that year, when he was told they could be discontinued. However, the pain returned within days and he was readmitted.
He was discharged without any further investigation into the question of whether the infection had been properly controlled or his spine was continuing to collapse. He continued to be in acute pain, for which he had to take a form of morphine. He was put onto annual review. No x-ray of the spine was taken in 2001 but in 2002 when the next x-ray was taken it showed that his spine was deteriorating. However, it was wrongly reported by the doctor treating Mr Ledger as showing no change. On each review at the hospital Mr Ledger asked if he could be offered treatment to ease his increasing pain and immobility but was told there was nothing more than could be done.
By 2003 he had lost faith in Addenbrookes, after his annual review had been carried out not by a doctor but a nurse, and he asked his GP to arrange for a second opinion. A new x-ray was sent to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore in July of that year and they immediately admitted Mr Ledger for treatment and surgery. Because of the extent of the spinal collapse and infection he was not able to be discharged home until that December. For the first time for four years he was not in pain although he was left with weakness in both legs.
His legal case against Addenbrookes has been managed by Trefine Maynard, a clinical negligence specialist at Kester Cunningham John. She is particularly critical of the failure of Addenbrookes to investigate whether the infection had been eradicated, to monitor the condition of Mr Ledger's spine and to review and give appropriate and effective treatment from late 1999 until Mr Ledger was finally admitted to Stanmore in July 2003.
Because of these failures the infection continued to be active in the spine and the vertebrae gradually collapsed. Throughout this time Mr Ledger was in acute pain and unable to take part in family life.
'The inability of the hospital to recognise that the spinal infection had not been eradicated and to respond to Mr Ledger's continued ill health and pain and their failure to report correctly on their own findings in 2002 is inexplicable,' she says.
'In the end it was only because Mr Ledger finally lost confidence with Addenbrookes and had a conscientious GP that he was referred to a hospital which finally treated him and left him pain free and with a stable although damaged spine.
'The condition of Mr Ledger's spine by 2003 can be deduced by the fact that the Royal National Orthopaedic whisked him in immediately they saw the pictures.
'Increasingly, problems of negligent hospital treatment centre arise around the failure of a treating doctor to recognise or accept that they are not having any success in treating a patient and that referral to another specialist may be needed.
'It was clear that Mr Ledger was in very considerable pain and was not getting better and yet no attempt was made to provide active treatment or to refer on to see if surgery might be appropriate. He effectively lost more than three years of his life.' |
|
