Doctor guilty of misconduct over girl's death that led to Martha's Rule
A doctor has been found guilty of misconduct for his failings in the treatment of a girl whose death led to Martha's Rule.
Prof Richard Thompson failed to escalate the treatment of Martha Mills, 13, before she died from sepsis in 2021, a disciplinary panel found on Monday.
The teenager's death prompted the introduction of Martha's Rule, which gives patients and families the right to a second medical opinion if their own or a loved one's condition deteriorates in hospital.
Martha died from sepsis after doctors missed its symptoms and did not heed warnings from her parents that her condition was rapidly deteriorating.
A medical tribunal in Manchester has now ruled that Thompson committed 'misconduct which impairs his fitness to practise' during her treatment.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found that the doctor, who was the on-duty consultant at King's College hospital (KCH) in London, had made 'particularly grave' failings.
It ruled that Thompson should have referred Martha to intensive care on Aug 29 2021 and that he had failed to conduct an in-person assessment of her condition.
The doctor was on-call at home for part of the day.
Robin Ince, the chairman of the panel, said there was 'no sound reason' why Thompson did not assess Martha's condition himself.
'The tribunal was of the view that, as more serious and unexplained factors had come into play, there were clear points (at 17.00 and 20.30) when Prof Thompson should have taken action not only to see Martha himself but also to refer Martha to PICU (paediatric intensive care unit) and these combined failures to do so makes them more serious,' he said.
'The tribunal appreciated that it was assisted by hindsight but concluded that there were sufficient adverse clinical indicators at the time of something unexplained going on such that direct review and escalation to PICU was required.'
Martha was only transferred to intensive care on August 30, by which point she had septic shock.
She died from sepsis on August 31 at Great Ormond Street hospital (GOSH), where she had been transferred.
A coroner ruled in 2022 that she would have likely survived if doctors at KCH had identified the warning signs of the condition and transferred her to intensive care sooner.
The trust has since apologised for mistakes in Martha's care.
Martha was in hospital with a pancreatic injury after a fall from her bike while on a family holiday in Wales. King's is a specialist national referral centre for children with pancreatic problems.
'Gravity of mistakes'
In a statement, Merope Mills and Paul Laity, Martha's parents, welcomed the recognition of the 'gravity of mistakes' made before her death.
'It is important to us that allegations denied have been found proved and the gravity of mistakes that led to our daughter's preventable death has been recognised,' they said.
'We will always have in our minds the failures of culture, training and policy on Rays of Sunshine ward at King's College Hospital, as well as the responsibility of individuals. We'd like to thank all of the thoughtful doctors who have helped us to understand what happened to Martha.'
Thompson's sanction will be determined at a separate hearing on Tuesday.
Mr Ince said the panel believed he had been 'remediated' and that it was 'highly unlikely that anything like this will ever happen again and there is no current impairment of Prof Thompson's fitness to practise on this basis '.
But he added: 'The tribunal concluded that the misconduct was such that a finding of impairment was required to uphold public confidence in the profession as well as uphold proper professional standards, and that it would be undermined if no finding of impairment were found.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
NHS gets an extra £29billion a year but waiting list targets may STILL be missed, health chiefs say
The NHS is unlikely to hit waiting time targets despite getting an extra £29billion a year in the Spending Review, health chiefs said last night. Economists described the real-terms rise as 'substantial', with the health service budget now equal to the entire annual income of Portugal. But patients were yesterday told to brace for cuts to services, with much of the extra cash set to be swallowed up by inflation-busting pay rises and higher drugs costs. Rachel Reeves told the Commons she is making a 'record cash investment' in the NHS, worth an extra 3 per cent a year in real terms. The Chancellor insisted this would lead to 'more appointments, more doctors and more scanners' as Labour seeks to deliver on its manifesto promise to get the NHS 'back on its feet'. But the settlement received a lukewarm response from NHS bosses, who said they would need even more money if the Government is to achieve its aim of treating 92 per cent of patients within 18 weeks of a GP referral by the end of this Parliament. Matthew Taylor, of the NHS Confederation, which represents health organisations, said: 'Difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29billion won't be enough to cover increasing costs of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it. 'On its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Sir Jim Mackey, chief executive of NHS England, told the NHS ConfedExpo conference in Manchester that the health service has done 'really well relative to other parts of the public service'. But he added: 'We all know it's never enough because of the scale of advancement, all the ambition, the day-to-day cost pressures... but I think everyone's starting to accept and understand we've got what the country can afford to give us. 'We really need to get better value for that money – it is broadly the equivalent of the GDP of Portugal, so it's a huge amount.' Government documents accompanying the Spending Review show that, on average, from 2023/24 to 2028/29, the NHS in England will receive 3 per cent real-terms growth in day-to-day spending, equivalent to a £29billion increase in annual budgets. The figures suggest Department of Health and Social Care spending will rise 2.8 per cent – less than the average 3.6 per cent seen in recent years. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the NHS was the 'biggest winner' in the Spending Review and described the Department of Health as a 'behemoth'. But he added: 'Even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough. Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' Sarah Woolnough, of health think-tank the King's Fund, said: 'It is hard to see how all the things she [Ms Reeves] mentions – faster ambulance times, more GP appointments and adequate mental health services and more – can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines... and staff pay deals.' However, she said the upcoming ten-year plan could lead to better, more efficient NHS services. According to spending review documents, the Government expects the NHS to deliver 2 per cent productivity growth each year, 'unlocking £17 billion savings over three years' to reinvest and improve patient care. Sally Gainsbury, at the Nuffield Trust health think-tank, said: 'Compared to settlements for other departments... the NHS deal looks generous. 'But seen in the context of all the promises made by the Government – to drive down waiting lists, shift care closer to home, rapidly improve tech – and the commitments to meet staff pay demands and rising costs of drugs, today's settlement soon melts away. 'With capital funding staying flat in real terms for the rest of the spending review period, it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the Government's ambitious productivity targets.' The Government said it will also invest up to £10 billion in NHS technology and digital transformation by 2028/29, plus £6 billion to speed up tests and treatments. Scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres are among things the additional cash – part of the overall £29 billion – will pay for, with the aim of providing up to 4 million more tests and procedures in the next five years.
Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Experts pinpoint exactly how long you need to use a contraceptive pill to increase your risk of a brain tumour
Millions of women taking the mini-pill could be at increased risk of developing a brain tumour, new research suggests. Experts found that women taking the progestogen-only pill—often dubbed 'the mini-pill' continuously for more than five years were more likely to develop a meningioma. Meningiomas accounts for a third of all brain tumours diagnosed in the UK each year. While usually non-cancerous they can still cause problems they grow larger inside the brain. In the new study, French researchers analysed data from over 8,000 women, with an average age of 60, who had surgery for this form of tumour. They found women who did were more likely to have been taking the mini pill—medically called desogestrel for at least five years. However, independent experts have said women on the medication shouldn't panic, as the increased risk is relatively small. Desogestrel, in contrast to the more famous Pill, only contains one sex hormone progestogen. It is primarily taken by women with underlying health conditions that makes taking other contraceptives dangerous, or who suffer adverse side effects when doing so. The NHS says natural family planning can be up to 99 per cent effective when done correctly and around 75 per cent if not used according to instructions. By comparison, the Pill, implant, IUS and IUD are 99 per cent effective with perfect use, while condoms are 98 per cent While the increased risk of a meningioma was observed, the authors—who published their findings in the British Medical Journal —said it was relatively minor. They outlined that only one out of 67,000 women taking desogestrel will develop a meningioma requiring surgery. The scientists also found that there was no increased risk when the mini pill was used for less than five years. They also found that the increased risk disappeared a year after coming off the mini pill. Meningiomas are a tumour of the membrane that surrounds the brain, with more than 90 per cent of these are not cancerous. While not at risk of spreading elsewhere in the body like a cancerous growth they can still cause patients problems. Every year proportion of meningioma patients will need surgery to remove the tumour due to it causing increased internal pressure on the brain. Common symptoms of a meningioma include a persistent headache as well as constant nausea which is often accompanied with drowsiness. Dr Mangesh Thorat, an expert in population health at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, said women on the medication shouldn't be alarmed. 'The magnitude of increase in the risk is small, and short-term use is not associated with increased risk and that the excess risk ceases to exist once the use is stopped for more than a year,' he said. He advised women who may be concerned about their risk to contact their GP. 'Talk to your healthcare provider regarding the drug you are using. If it is associated with an increased risk of meningioma, this can be changed to a safer alternative,' he said. Experts say that a limitation of the study is that the researchers only looked at one type of progestogen pill—desogestrel and not other drugs that also include the hormone. Dr Thorat said: 'the study cannot provide information on the formulations not commonly used in France but used in other countries.' He has called on further studies to be undertaken in different countries. Figures currently suggest around 6 per cent of women aged 16 to 49 use the mini pill in the UK—roughly 3.1 million patients. Taken every day, it works by thickening cervical mucus and thinning the womb lining which helps stop sperm reaching an egg and from a fertilised egg attaching itself in the womb. In some cases, the mini pill can also stop ovulation from occurring. It is 99.7 per cent effective with perfect use but if used incorrectly—such as missing a pill or experiencing nausea and diarrhoea while on it—around one in ten women (9 per cent) may get pregnant. Known side effects of the mini pill—proven to be over 99 per cent effective at stopping pregnancy—include nausea, breast tenderness, mood swings and headaches. Others claim they pile on pounds while taking the drug because of increased fluid retention and appetite. However, the NHS says there is no evidence it leads to weight gain. The latest study comes just a month after British scientists found that women with asthma who are taking the mini pill were a third more likely to suffer an attack.
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
NHS chiefs claim record cash injection might not be enough
Health chiefs have claimed that a record £29 billion cash injection might not be enough to save the NHS. Rachel Reeves announced the bumper increase for 'our most treasured public service' in her spending review, saying it would 'put the NHS firmly back on the path to renewal'. But there were immediate warnings that the money might not secure the reform the NHS needs. Ministers have yet to publish a 10-year health plan setting out their intentions, which was due in May. Sir Jim Mackey, the NHS chief executive, said the sums being ploughed into the health service were 'huge', telling senior managers at the NHS ConfedExpo in Manchester that the NHS budget would now match the GDP of Portugal, which tops £220 billion. The head of the health service said the NHS had done 'really well' from the spending review. It was now the job of the service to ensure it provides 'better value', he said. However, the funding increase, which amounts to a 3 per cent annual increase for the NHS, immediately prompted other health leaders to raise fears that it would not result in reform. Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of NHS Confederation, which represents all health organisations, suggested the Government was 'resorting to magical thinking'. He said: 'The next four years will be the most important years in the history of the NHS. If we get it wrong, they could be among the last years.' While welcoming the extra money, Mr Taylor suggested it was not enough to support major reform. He said: 'We will do what we can with the revenue that we've got. It's going to be really tough.' Money will be absorbed by staff pay Mr Taylor, a former aide to Tony Blair, said: 'I remember the last time we tried reform, the government – I – supported 6 per cent a year. That's not the world right now.' He said the NHS would now face difficult decisions because the extra £29 billion would not be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments, with much of it likely to be absorbed by staff pay. After record pay increases last year, junior doctors – since rebranded as resident doctors – are threatening to strike again, despite being offered the biggest pay award in the public sector. The chief executive suggested that the funding boost could not guarantee even that waiting time targets would be met. Sally Gainsbury, a senior policy analyst from think tank Nuffield Trust, said: 'Compared to the settlements for other departments – from policing to education – the NHS deal looks generous. 'But seen in the context of all the promises made by the Government to the British people – to drive down waiting lists, shift care closer to home, rapidly improve tech – and the commitments to meet staff pay demands and rising costs of new drugs, today's settlement soon melts away.' Sarah Woolnough, the chief executive of The King's Fund, said: 'Despite the tough economic climate, the government has prioritised health services by continuing to increase spending on the NHS for the rest of this parliament. 'A 2.8 per cent average increase in total health department spending – 3 per cent for day-to-day NHS spending – will have been hard-fought for in the spending round negotiations, despite still being lower than the historical average the NHS has received over recent years. 'A key challenge now will be for the NHS to decide how it can deliver most value from the money that has been allocated. 'We know there are already trade-offs happening in the NHS due to tight finances. The Chancellor said she wants the public to have 'an NHS there when they need it'. 'It is hard to see how all the things she mentions – faster ambulance times, more GP appointments and adequate mental health services and more - can be met on this settlement alone.' The service was urged to ensure that it spends the money wisely. Jennifer Dixon, the chief executive of charity the Health Foundation, said: 'Given the economic and financial challenges facing the government, a real terms funding increase of 3 per cent a year is a good settlement for the NHS. 'But how far the money stretches and how much it benefits patients – will depend on how much is needed to fund pay settlements for NHS staff and how well the money is spent.'
