Woman suing NHS trust after blade broke off during surgery and lodged itself in her body
Jane Harvey* suffered horrendous physical and mental consequences when, during an abdominal hysterectomy in October 2023, the tip of one of the surgeon's blades broke off and lodged inside her without any of the operating theatre staff noticing or an X-ray spotting it.
As a result the 44-year-old had to undergo further surgery to remove the mislaid blade part and stay in hospital longer than planned, needed extra time to recover and suffered nightmares, panic attacks and loss of appetite. She is now suing the NHS trust concerned for damages because of her experience.
She was 'shocked, horrified and upset' when she learned that surgeons had left some of their kit inside her. She was also worried after being told that she was at increased risk of infection, which meant she had to take antibiotics. Given what had happened, the thought of having a second operation left her 'drained and scared'.
Harvey, an administrator in a law firm, ended up 'paranoid and anxious' that not all the surgical equipment had been safely removed. She felt constantly sick that something was in her body that should not be there and lost her desire to eat. She also lost trust and confidence in those treating her.
'This case is a shocking example of how faulty medical equipment, compounded by failures in surgical and diagnostic care, can result in serious harm to patients,'said Ikhira Thandi, a litigation legal assistant at Lime Solicitors, which is acting for the woman in her lawsuit.
'Our client not only had to endure a second major surgery but has also had the lasting psychological impact of knowing a broken surgical tool was left inside her. Patients should be able to trust that equipment used in their care is safe, helping to deliver their treatment, not hinder it.'
Three months after the incident the patient's consultant apologised for it and explained that the dislodged blade tip was due to a manufacturing fault.
James Anderson, Lime's head of medical negligence in the West Midlands, said: 'Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Across the NHS there is evidence of faulty equipment causing avoidable patient harm. These failures carry a real human cost.'
The evidence presented at an inquest last year led to a coroner issuing an unequivocal warning about the danger that inadequate medical equipment can present.
Georgina Nolan, the senior coroner for Newcastle and North Tyneside, issued a prevention of future deaths report after hearing the inquest into the death of Michael Walton. The 66-year-old underwent heart bypass surgery in Newcastle on 13 June 2023 and was judged to be at low risk of complications.
However, the surgeon's preferred type of cannula was unavailable 'due to supply issues' so they instead used one with a slightly shorter tip.
However, as the prevention of future deaths notice explained: 'During the course of the procedure the aortic cannula became dislodged, causing a loss of perfusion and a prolonged period of interrupted blood flow to the deceased's brain, which caused an ischaemic hypoxic brain injury from which he died on 13 July 2023.'
In the matters of concern she outlined in her report, Nolan said that 'the cannula type contributed to its dislodgement from the lumen of the aorta and to Mr Walton's death'.
And, she added, the events investigated at the inquest showed that 'using suboptimal medical equipment poses an avoidable risk to patients of significant harm, including death'.
* name has been changed
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Awkward! How the new chairman of Reform UK called party leader Nigel Farage 'an idiot' and branded his comments about HIV-infected migrants using the NHS 'prejudiced'
Reform UK's new chairman once called leader Nigel Farage an 'idiot', it emerged last night. Dr David Bull, who was unveiled as Zia Yusuf's replacement, also branded as 'prejudiced' comments that Mr Farage had made about HIV-infected migrants using the NHS. The remarks surfaced just hours after Dr Bull gave his maiden speech as chairman and threatened to overshadow his appointment, while at a Press conference unveiling the new chairman, Mr Farage unexpectedly ruled out putting the return of the death penalty on Reform's manifesto at the next general election. Dr Bull's comments, first reported by The Daily Telegraph, were made on social media in 2014. He posted them after Mr Farage, then leader of his previous party UKIP, suggested that HIV-positive immigrants should not be allowed to come to the UK and receive treatment on the NHS. He said it should not be used as a 'global health service', adding: 'I do not think people with life-threatening diseases should be treated by our National Health Service, and that is an absolute essential condition for working out a proper immigration policy.' Sharing an article about Mr Farage's comments, Dr Bull wrote on X/ Twitter: 'Nigel Farage's comments are ill-judged, prejudiced and dangerous. HIV can affect anyone regardless of sex, race and class.' In the post, still visible online, he added: '#idiot #unhelpful.' Dr Bull, 56, is a long-time ally of Mr Farage and has held roles in both Reform and its former iteration, the Brexit Party. He served as an MEP for North West England between 2019 and 2020. Mr Farage said that Dr Bull would bring 'terrific verve, energy, enthusiasm' to his new role. Mr Yusuf plunged the party into turmoil on Thursday after announcing his shock resignation on social media, giving Mr Farage only ten minutes' notice. He said he was quitting after attacking one of his own MPs, Sarah Pochin, for calling for a burka ban during Prime Minister's Questions. But just 48 hours after leaving, he said he was returning to the party. The 38-year-old businessman said his resignation had been 'born of exhaustion' after working for the party for 11 months 'without a day off'. He will now lead Reform's Elon Musk-inspired Doge unit, which the party says will root out wasteful spending in the ten councils it controls, starting in Kent. The decision not to include anything in Reform's manifesto about the death penalty will likely disappoint millions of its voters. A poll by the think-tank More In Common in January found nearly eight in ten of its backers support it 'for certain crimes'. Mr Farage said 'nothing on the death penalty will be part of [Reform] party policy' and that 'personally I don't think I could ever support it'. He said he was opposed because of hundreds of 'quite serious miscarriages of justice' having emerged since the 70s, adding that he believed it will become a big national issue because of polling suggesting younger generations are increasingly in favour. It may lead to suspicions that Mr Farage is trying to make Reform UK appear less Right-wing and controversial as it increasingly tries to target Labour voters. It also emerged that Reform lost nearly 3,500 members in the past week amid the Yusuf fiasco.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying
The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has come out against assisted dying. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater 's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role that it was expected to play in the assisted dying process. Under the Bill, assisted deaths will not be automatically referred to a coroner, which is usual practice for potentially unnatural deaths and when a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This will mean that it is for medical examiners to scrutinise assisted deaths. The professional body that represents them says that they are not qualified to do so and warn that a lack of resourcing means that medical examiners may be pulled away from other parts of their vital work. Ms Leadbeater on Tuesday defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there was 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards were in place. It comes as the Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote on the legislation is expected next week. Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said that the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, Dr Lishman said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. 'As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need of 'significant' training and resources needed for medical examiners to be able to perform the role in the process. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS published this week said that the Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They said: 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.' The Royal College of Pathologists is the latest royal college to come out against the legislation, after the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced their opposition to the Bill last month. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner, however this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Cash strapped NHS board to cut nappies for newborns in bizarre bid to slash costs
Bosses at a cash-strapped health board are to axe the free provision of disposable nappies in maternity wards – to save just £8,000 a year. Executives at NHS Grampian decided parents of healthy newborns can foot the bill for the absorbents as they struggle to manage the board's budget. The development comes despite the fact a study last month revealed the board had the highest-earning manager in Scotland's public health service. Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White MSP said: 'It's a measure of the SNP 's chronic underfunding of NHS Grampian that they've axed the provision of nappies for newborns. 'With NHS Grampian paying a medical director a whopping £242k a year, making him the highest earning NHS manager in Scotland, new mums will rightly question whether huge wage bills at the top should be prioritised over the needs of patients.' NHS Grampian needs to reduce a deficit of £23million but the anticipated savings form the nappies would amount to just 0.035 per cent of the total required. Other planned belt-tightening proposals include the reduction of services over public holidays while spiritual care would also be scaled back. Last month, it emerged that the health board has been escalated to stage four of NHS Scotland's National Performance Framework amid concerns over finances and governance. Holyrood ministers decided to step up scrutiny at NHS Grampian after it needed a loan of more than £67million to tackle overspend. Documents put before the board tomorrow (Thu) say about the nappies: 'This proposed saving relates to discontinuing the provision of disposable nappies for all well babies born in Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Dr Grays Hospital, Inverurie Community Maternity Unit and Peterhead Community Maternity Unit. 'Note that a reusable nappies voucher is provided in the baby box supplied to all pregnant women in Scotland by the Scottish Government.' It goes on to say the proposal has 'potential negative impacts' as it could be seen discriminatory against babies or pregnant women and it would impact those on lower incomes. However, to mitigate the lack of kit in maternity wards it adds: 'It is intended that pregnant women will bring their own supply of nappies for their babies who are born well and not admitted to the neonatal unit.' The paperwork clarifies the move would not affect babies who require special-sized nappies that are admitted to the neo-natal unit. But the overall savings from the move are understood to be in the region of just £8,000 a year. In 2024, NHS Grampian welcomed around 4,800 babies. On average each newborn needs up to 10 nappies a day putting the annual requirement for the health board to around 50,000 per year. In January 2022 a consumer website said the average price of a nappy was 14.6p and allowing for inflation it could now be around 16p costing NHS Grampian the total of £8,000. A recent study by the campaign group Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) revealed the health board manager earning most in Scotland in 2023/24 was Paul Bachoo, acute medical director and portfolio lead (surgery and clinical support) at NHS Grampian, with a total remuneration of £242,500 – enough to pay for the nappy provision for the next 30 years. A spokesman for the National Childbirth Trust, or NCT, warned of the impact on new parents and said: 'The early hours and days of having a newborn can be a challenging period for parents, and postnatally the NHS has a responsibility to support new babies. 'Parents may have arrived in hospital unexpectedly, following a traumatic birth, or may not have arrived with a packed birth bag with newborn nappies. 'Offering a supply of free to access nappies is an essential item in the immediate hours after birth, and giving parents a moment to catch their breath, and find the appropriate nappies for their baby upon discharge from hospital.' Critics said the move to axe the free provision of nappies is just the latest example of the Scottish Government's failures over the National Health Service. Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP said: 'Health board budgets are facing the squeeze, but cruelly snatching away nappies that don't even cost much is hardly the way to deal with it. 'What's next? Cots and blankets? 'The Scottish Government should be working with health boards to devise a proper strategy to ease these budget pressures. But as usual, the SNP are failing to step up and deliver for our NHS.' Scottish Labour health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie added: 'Right across Scotland NHS boards are being forced to make difficult choices as pressure mounts on frontline services. 'The SNP has taken NHS Grampian into special measures so it is directly responsible for these cuts. 'This cut will take a toll on new families and barely make a dent on the board's eyewatering deficit. 'The SNP must work with Health Boards to ease the dangerous financial pressure on local services and protect patients.' Shimeon Lee, policy analyst at the TaxPayers' Alliance said the plan to cut disposable nappies was a 'poorly targeted move which will save very little' when top bosses were paid such large amount. He added: 'Recent TPA research found that the NHS wastes hundreds of millions on electricity and postage costs, highlighting where trusts could make better use of their resources. 'Instead of penny pinching from babies, the health bosses should focus on meaningful efficiencies to cut costs.' The NHS Grampian paperwork also warns that any increases in costs would minimise the impact from the planned savings. It adds: 'There are a number of risks associated with the financial recovery plan for 2025/26 which would leave NHS Grampian with no flexibility to manage any in year cost pressures that arise.' A spokesman for NHS Grampian said the 'board is being asked to approve those savings at the meeting on Thursday'. Health Secretary Neil Gray said: 'The Scottish Government has received the financial recovery plan from NHS Grampian and we will continue to work with them as they work towards a position of financial sustainability. Our expectation is that proposed savings are proportionate, while also protecting frontline services. 'As part of the escalation to Stage 4 of the NHS Scotland Support and Intervention Framework there is a programme of enhanced scrutiny and support from the Scottish Government. I am confident that, through these actions, we will soon have a clear plan to stabilise the system and set the right conditions for the necessary, longer term transformational work – with the key aim being to ensure the sustainable delivery of high quality healthcare services for the benefit of local people.'
