'Fresh eyes' investigation finds systemic failings in case of stillborn baby
Photo:
123rf.com
After initially refusing to investigate, the Health and Disability Commissioner has found systemic failings in the care given to a woman whose daughter was stillborn.
The woman, who suffered three bleeds during what was deemed a "high risk" pregnancy in 2013, made a complaint to the HDC after the death of her child.
The HDC decided to take no further action, but after a review by the Ombudsman, reopened the complaint in 2021 and took a "fresh eyes" approach to the investigation.
The baby's family said it had continued to strive for change, rather than place blame, and would do everything in its power to prevent this tragedy from falling upon another family.
In her findings, Commissioner Morag McDowell said the inquiry highlighted the importance of monitoring an unborn baby's movements.
She found the lack of an ultrasound at Auckland Hospital after the woman's admission for a third bleed was not a failure in care, but several failings by Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) amounted to a breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights - including the woman's early discharge, a failure to communicate with the midwife and not arranging follow-up care within an appropriate timeframe.
The lead maternity carer - a community-based midwife - was found to have given the woman incorrect information about what to consider normal movement from the baby and the Commissioner was also critical of the midwife's documentation.
Noting the changes already made at ADHB, such as providing patients with information about foetal movement monitoring and implementing a discharge checklist, McDowell recommended it apologise to the family and assess its treatment guidelines on antepartum haemorrhages.
She recommended the midwife provide evidence of training on monitoring foetal movement.
The woman - known as Mrs A - was healthy, in her 30s and the pregnancy was her second. It was classified high risk, after she developed preeclampsia in her first pregnancy and underwent a caesarean section at 37 weeks.
At 16 weeks pregnant, she had a bleed and an ultrasound found a haematoma on the wall of her uterus.
A few weeks later, following a second bleed, a scan did not find a haematoma and the cause of the bleed was not identified.
At 30 weeks, Mrs A suffered a "significant" bleed - according to independent expert Dr Michel Sangalli - and was transferred from a secondary hospital to Auckland Hospital, a tertiary institution.
She was observed there for two days, while her bleeding stabilised, but no source was identified and monitoring showed the baby's heartbeat was normal.
The plan was for her to remain in hospital for another 24 hours and undergo a second urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio test - an indicator for preeclampsia, but she was discharged after a few hours, without being tested.
Ten days later, Mrs A and her husband had an appointment with her midwife. Two days after that, at 32 weeks, Mrs A went into early labour and monitoring showed the baby had no heartbeat.
She was induced and gave birth to a stillborn daughter. A post-mortem found no evidence of a recent bleed in the placenta, but the placenta showed signs of tissue death.
The Commissioner investigated Mrs A's care in the context of her suffering the three pregnancy bleeds before her daughter was stillborn.
With regard to ADHB, the inquiry considered whether an ultrasound should have been performed at Auckland Hospital after Mrs A's third bleed to assess the baby's wellbeing, and the information and communication provided on discharge.
McDowell also looked at the information provided by the midwife on fetal movements during pregnancy and the care to Mrs A immediately after she was discharged from hospital.
In his advice to the Commissioner, Dr Sangalli said the single most important mishap in the case was the lack of an ultrasound after Mrs A's third bleed at 30 weeks pregnant and he believed this to be a breach of the profession's standards.
However, McDowell said there was no consensus on whether an ultrasound should have been given, noting two clinicians - including Dr Sangalli - said a scan was warranted, whereas eight clinicians (six from ADHB) did not.
Noting that Dr Sangalli said the lack of an ultrasound was only a mild breach, the Commissioner found that the failure to undertake an ultrasound at Auckland Hospital did not amount to a breach in the standard of care.
McDowell did find Mrs A's care at the hospital fell below the accepted standard and the several failures amounted to a breach in the code by ADHB.
In particular, she noted Mrs A was discharged without a clear reason, despite the plan to remain in hospital for a further 24 hours and undertake a test that could indicate preeclampsia.
McDowell said follow-up appointments were scheduled too late - outside the appropriate timeframes - her discharge information was not given to her midwife or local hospital, and she was told she could leave without being given advice about monitoring her baby's movements.
Mrs A and her husband said they raised their concerns about their baby's "significantly" reduced movements in an appointment with the midwife 10 days after leaving hospital.
The midwife said, while foetal movement was discussed, she said Mrs A stated she was "unsure" about the baby's movements, not concerned.
The Commissioner was unable to make a finding about what was discussed at the appointment.
However, she said the midwife's advice about expecting "at least 10" movements from the baby per day was incorrect and she was critical of the midwife's documentation, but the failures did not amount to a breach.
She found the care immediately provided by the midwife after Mrs A's discharge from hospital was acceptable.
ADHB and the midwife accepted the Commissioner's provisional findings.
In addition to changes already made by ADHB - including providing patients with information about foetal movement monitoring, sharing discharge notes with lead maternity carers and other DHBs, and a discharge checklist - McDowell recommended the DHB review its guidelines on investigating antepartum haemorrhages to see whether further clarity was needed and writing a letter of apology to the family.
The midwife said she now asked for discharge papers from Auckland Hospital and advised clients to call her, if they had trouble getting an ultrasound. In addition to this, the Commissioner recommended the midwife provide evidence of training she'd undertaken about foetal movement and how she provides that advice to patients.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
5 days ago
- RNZ News
Woman says she was left with collapsing nostril after being 'upsold' unnecessary surgery
By Al Williams, Open Justice reporter of The otolaryngologist diagnosed a benign tumour inside her left nostril, which he said needed removal. Photo: 123rf A woman says her nose was "overserviced" by a surgeon who convinced her to undergo additional surgery she didn't need or want. Her nostril collapsed following the surgery and she says she was "extremely humiliated" by the doctor who refused to discuss the matter, saying he no longer wanted to treat her and telling her to leave his office. She told the Health and Disability Commissioner that the tests he undertook before surgery were not well informed and that he didn't give her enough information about the risks. According to an HDC decision released today, the woman met the otolaryngologist in August 2019. He diagnosed a benign tumour inside her left nostril, which he said needed removal. The surgeon said the woman wanted her nasal airway improved and that they had discussed additional surgery. But, her version was that he "convinced" her to undergo the surgery, despite the fact she didn't want her nasal airway improved and didn't initiate the conversation. She considered he had "upsold" her the treatment following the original purpose of her visit, to have the tumour removed. The surgeon said he had discussed the risk of additional surgery, and performed it in June 2020, undertaking procedures to address sinus issues, improve airflow, drainage and ventilation. Within two days, the woman raised concerns with the surgeon, telling him her left nostril collapsed when she inhaled deeply. He told her to continue rinsing it and to add a steroid spray to the rinse. After three weeks, she visited the surgeon and was advised that "the nose has settled down beautifully". There was no correspondence in clinical notes about the visit or that she had raised concerns about her collapsing nostril. Again, she outlined concerns about the nostril at a third post-operative appointment. She said the doctor then became defensive, agreeing that the left nostril was collapsing but said "that this was still a good outcome". His consultation notes show at that point, for the first time, the woman's complaint was documented. The surgeon noted near full healing, adding the tumour couldn't be ruled out, but he felt that the analysis was overly cautious and the nasal passage was entirely normal. He did touch on the issue of what intervention might be required to correct the collapse, discussing surgery. At that point, the decision said he acknowledged in his consultation letter that the patient had "certainly expressed dissatisfaction with a collapsing nostril with forced inspiration". The woman said there was then a heated disagreement and that she was advised by the doctor that he no longer wished to treat her and asked her to leave. She was, according to her recollection, "castigated" by the receptionist for her apparent rudeness, and left. She said she emailed the clinic with a complaint on the same day, telling the Health and Disability Commissioner that she had not received a response from the doctor or the clinic. The doctor said the woman's explanation of the final appointment was "wholly unacceptable" and that" something certainly didn't feel right about the way (she) engaged and what was being explained to her". He said the collapse was caused by forced breathing and that normal breathing post-surgery may take up to 12 months. He said the woman was "overly dramatic" and became upset when video images showed that the nasal cavity was not out of place. The surgeon said she was not interested in viewing the video footage or formatting a treatment plan going forward. He said he knew she could be "very unpleasant and aggressive" and, as he didn't wish to get into an argument with her, he "stood up and terminated the consultation". He told the commissioner he wrote a "full report" to her GP on the same day and advised her to seek the guidance of another ear, nose and throat surgeon. Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Vanessa Caldwell said the doctor breached part of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights as he did not provide the woman with a written acknowledgement of her complaint within five working days and missed an opportunity to resolve it. The doctor could have communicated clearly in writing, outlining the reasons why he did not accept the complaint and any proposed actions he intended to take, and any appeal procedure that he had in place. She was also critical of him for ending the doctor-patient relationship 'to avoid argument' saying it wasn't a sufficient enough reason to do so, nor was the woman making a complaint about him. "Consumers are entitled to ask further questions about the outcome of surgery and to make complaints under the Code." "Even if the relationship was deemed 'irretrievable', as (the doctor) submits, this should have been managed in a professional manner." Caldwell said the lack of information provided about the risk of a collapse was a mild departure from accepted practice and the doctor failed to explain why additional surgery was necessary. While she was unable to make a finding about the doctor's diagnosis due to a difference in clinical opinion, Caldwell said the woman "trusted" his judgement as an "expert". "In my view, this illustrates an imbalance of power within the doctor-patient relationship, where consumers may feel unable to challenge a doctor's recommendation or make decisions based on trust (as opposed to an informed choice based on knowledge about their health status and alternative treatment options). It was noted the doctor had however taken the matter "very seriously" and made changes to his practice, taking part in a consent development forum, data collection processes, formalised complaint procedures, a review of doctor-patient relationship guidelines and an increase in staff, including a plastic surgeon who specialises in nasal surgery. The doctor was told to apologise to the patient and undertake an audit of compliance with the complaints procedure. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .


Otago Daily Times
01-08-2025
- Otago Daily Times
Social worker suspended over dodgy Covid vaccine exemption
A Dunedin-based social worker who issued a shonky Covid-19 vaccine exemption has been suspended for a year. Dr Jacquelyn Elkington's case came before the Social Workers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal yesterday — but she did not. Elderly pay price for Covid 'complacency' The woman, who is listed on the University of Otago's website as a senior lecturer hauora Māori, failed to show up for the hearing and was promptly found guilty of professional misconduct after tribunal chairman Winston McCarthy found her behaviour was likely to bring discredit to the profession. It was the first time a social worker has been taken to task over a Covid-19 issue and co-counsel for the professional conduct committee (PCC) Becca Boles said the only appropriate penalty was deregistration. But the tribunal opted to suspend Dr Elkington for 12 months, censuring her and ordering her to pay costs of more than $13,000. In November 2021, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the government introduced legislation narrowing the grounds for a vaccine exemption. Only a suitably qualified health practitioner could make the assessment and it had to be verified by the country's director-general of health. A month later, Dr Elkington — who was working in Auckland at the time — issued such an exemption for a "vulnerable" client. "She's not a medical practitioner, she's a social worker," PCC co-counsel Elena Mok said. "Her conduct took her outside the scope of her practice." A day later, the man used the exemption in a bid to gain entry to a recreational facility. A staff member subsequently raised suspicions and referred the matter to the health and disability commissioner (HDC). Ms Mok said Dr Elkington's conduct "snowballed" from that point, Dr Elkington thwarting the resulting investigations against her by repeatedly failing to provide information. In June 2022, the woman made an online application to renew her practising certificate with the Social Workers Registration Board. Dr Elkington falsely indicated she was not subject to any inquiry and when she was pulled up on her lie, she claimed she thought the HDC inquiry had closed. But a couple of months later she resubmitted the online application, again declaring she was free of any scrutiny. Dr Elkington's behaviour was "at least misleading, if not outright false", Ms Mok said. The social worker went on to claim she felt "harassed and threatened" by the probe into her conduct, and that it was "borderline bullying". Many requests for information — about client notes or records on how many vaccine exemptions she had issued — throughout 2024, after the file was passed on to the PCC, were met with silence. At other points, Dr Elkington said she could not provide the documentation as she did not have the consent of her clients. She occasionally claimed to have already submitted the requested information and also made references to the Bill of Rights Act and various international treaties. On one occasion Dr Elkington referred to the River of Lies documentary — which bills itself as revealing the truth behind the "New Zealand scamdemic" — produced by the controversial Billy Te Kahika. Her lack of engagement in the process showed a disrespect for the process and an ongoing lack of remorse and insight, reinforced by her non-attendance at yesterday's hearing, the PCC argued. "The vaccine exemption appears to have been issued because of Dr Elkington's personal beliefs about the safety of the vaccine and her views on the Covid pandemic," Ms Mok said. "Dr Elkington's attempt to justify her approach is an example of her effectively allowing these personal beliefs to influence her social work practice unduly." The University of Otago refused to answer questions about the woman's employment at the institution. In 2022, Dr Elkington ran for the Whakatāne mayoralty and posted online at the time her various theories, which included that the Covid-19 vaccination caused monkeypox. She came sixth out of seven candidates. Dr Elkington did not respond to requests for comment. The tribunal ordered that if the social worker returned to practice she must undertake monthly supervision for a year.

RNZ News
28-07-2025
- RNZ News
Whakatāne rest home failed to care for resident with dignity and respect, report shows
File photo. Photo: 123RF Multiple staff at a Whakatāne care home were demeaning and disrespectful to a resident in her seventies suffering a neurological condition in their care, the Aged Care Commissioner has found. Commissioner Carolyn Cooper's report into Golden Pond Private Hospital found staff repeatedly failed to treat the woman with dignity and respect, including ignoring and at times berating her pleas to go to the toilet, and standing over and arguing with her while she was on the toilet. The woman - called Mrs A - was in her seventies and lived at Golden Pond between May 2019 and November 2020, where she received hospital-level care for a neurological condition called progressive supranuclear palsy, affecting her speech, swallowing, eye movements and mobility. She was deaf, needing face-to-face conversations, and had a history of depression. Her daughter had installed security cameras in her mother's unit to watch over her belongings and to establish the cause of her falls, but became concerned with the way staff were treating her mother after reviewing the footage. She lodged complaints over a number of matters with the Health and Disability Commissioner. Cooper recommended that Golden Pond provide evidence of newly implemented staff training, including on elder abuse, in six months. Cooper watched 23 videos of interactions between staff members and Mrs A at Golden Pond, and found a "concerning pattern of demeaning and disrespectful treatment" involving six staff members, including two nurses. While noting that each video only captured a short period of time, Cooper said the way staff spoke to Mrs A in a repeatedly negative way showed a culture of disrespect for those under Golden Pond's care. Three videos between January and April 2020, relating to Mrs A toileting needs, were "particularly concerning". A video from January 2020 showed a nurse arguing loudly with Mrs A while she was sitting on the toilet, while Mrs A sounded distressed. Cooper said a healthcare assistant, who was in Mrs A's bedroom, stated she was wasting staff time. Cooper said the incident showed an "appalling disregard for Mrs A's dignity". "While it is not clear what happened prior to the clip shown in the video, there is no conceivable circumstance in which it would be acceptable for a carer to stand over a vulnerable consumer and argue with them while they are on the toilet." Another video, taken in April 2020, showed Mrs A sitting on a commode with a healthcare assistant standing next to her searching for toilet paper. Cooper said the video showed Mrs A saying she could not go to the toilet while the healthcare assistant was there, and the assistant responding abruptly that other residents could. A third video, from April 2020, showed Mrs A distressed and pleading to go to the toilet, but being told by healthcare assistants that her incontinence pad would suffice, and that she should have gone to the toilet earlier. Cooper said the independent clinical adviser, registered nurse Julia Russell, called the incident a "severe departure from the accepted standard of care". She said that concerns about Mrs A's care were raised as early as January 2020, but staff did not improve their conduct, and the situation was not adequately monitored for months. While staff would have been under stress due to the Covid-19 pandemic during these months, it was not an excuse for the behaviour, Cooper said. Cooper was also critical of Golden Pond's lack of records about Mrs A's care plan from the first half of 2020, and the fact that Golden Pond did not provide these records to the Health and Disability Commissioner after the investigation was launched. Cooper said that Golden Pond had made significant changes since a provisional decision relating to the investigation was released. Staff received education and training including about elder abuse, respectful conduct, managing stress and challenging resident behaviours. A new facility manager was appointed in 2021, and multiple policies, including one highlighting a zero tolerance towards abuse, were updated. Cooper said a March 2025 audit of Golden Pond found that residents were safe from abuse, and there were no examples of discrimination, coercion or harassment. Cooper recommended that Golden Pond provide evidence of the new training material and staff attendance records to the Health and Disability Commissioner in six months. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.