Latest news with #MarthaMills
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- General
- Daily Mail
Consultant missed 'high-risk indicators' girl, 13, was suffering from sepsis and should have sent her to intensive care, tribunal rules
A 13-year-old girl died from sepsis after a senior doctor missed 'high-risk' signs of the condition and didn't send her to intensive care, a tribunal has ruled. Martha Mills was an inpatient on the Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital in London after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later she experienced a fever, increased heart rate and had a catheter inserted into her vein, which is said to have been a likely source of the deadly infection, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing was told. More spikes in her temperature followed, before consultant hepatologist Professor Richard Thompson saw Martha on his morning ward round on August 29 at the hospital. The on-call consultant left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care, before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. At a 2022 inquest into her death a coroner ruled Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. He said: 'These changes collectively indicated a sudden and significant deterioration for no clearly identified was evident that by around 5pm the clinical condition of Martha justified escalation to PICU (paediatric intensive care unit) and this opportunity was not taken.' The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk signs and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement, said the tribunal. Mr Ince said: 'The tribunal notes that Professor Thompson expressed a preference to prearrange any PICU involvement, rather than having PICU clinicians arrive unexpectedly and cause distress to Martha's parents. 'While the tribunal understands the desire to manage the family anxiety sensitively, this did not, in its view, justify withholding or delaying a clinically indicated escalation of care.' He added: 'The tribunal therefore concluded that the GMC (General Medical Council) has proved its case that Professor Thompson failed to take more aggressive intervention from 12 noon onwards in that he did not escalate Martha to the PICU team for a direct clinical review.' The tribunal also ruled that Prof Thompson should have conducted a direct in-person review and assessment of Martha, including the developing rash, from 5pm, which would have been 'beneficial'. Mr Ince said: 'He would no doubt have discovered that no observations had been taken in respect of Martha from 2pm to at least 4.45pm. 'The tribunal notes that one of the advantages of escalating a patient to PICU would have been an increased level of monitoring. 'Although no explanation has been given to the tribunal for the failure to monitor Martha between 2pm and 4.45pm, this absence of monitoring on the ward would no doubt have been a significant factor in justifying such an escalation.' The tribunal cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's allegations that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. The MPTS hearing in Manchester continues as the tribunal considers whether Prof Thompson's fitness to practice is impaired.
The Independent
5 hours ago
- General
- The Independent
Consultant should have referred teenager to intensive care, tribunal rules
A senior doctor should have referred a teenager to intensive care when she displayed several 'high-risk indicators' of sepsis days before she died, a medical tribunal has found. Martha Mills, 13, had been an inpatient on the Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital in London after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later she experienced a fever, increased heart rate and had a catheter inserted into her vein, which was 'ultimately considered' to be a likely source of the infection that led to her death from sepsis, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing was told. More spikes in her temperature followed, before consultant hepatologist Professor Richard Thompson saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29 at the hospital, one of three locations in the UK which specialise in the treatment of paediatric pancreatic injuries. The on-call consultant left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. He said: 'These changes collectively indicated a sudden and significant deterioration for no clearly identified reason…it was evident that by around 5pm the clinical condition of Martha justified escalation to PICU (paediatric intensive care unit) and this opportunity was not taken.' The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement, said the tribunal. Mr Ince said: 'The tribunal notes that Professor Thompson expressed a preference to prearrange any PICU involvement, rather than having PICU clinicians arrive unexpectedly and cause distress to Martha's parents. 'While the tribunal understands the desire to manage the family anxiety sensitively, this did not, in its view, justify withholding or delaying a clinically indicated escalation of care.' He added: 'The tribunal therefore concluded that the GMC (General Medical Council) has proved its case that Professor Thompson failed to take more aggressive intervention from 12 noon onwards in that he did not escalate Martha to the PICU team for a direct clinical review.' The tribunal also ruled that Prof Thompson should have conducted a direct in-person review and assessment of Martha, including the developing rash, from 5pm, which would have been 'beneficial'. Mr Ince said: 'He would no doubt have discovered that no observations had been taken in respect of Martha from 2pm to at least 4.45pm. 'The tribunal notes that one of the advantages of escalating a patient to PICU would have been an increased level of monitoring. 'Although no explanation has been given to the tribunal for the failure to monitor Martha between 2pm and 4.45pm, this absence of monitoring on the ward would no doubt have been a significant factor in justifying such an escalation.' The tribunal cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's allegations that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash. Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care, before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. At a 2022 inquest into her death a coroner ruled Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. The MPTS hearing in Manchester continues as the tribunal considers whether Prof Thompson's fitness to practise is impaired.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Consultant should have referred teenager to intensive care, tribunal rules
A senior doctor should have referred a teenager to intensive care when she displayed several 'high-risk indicators' of sepsis days before she died, a medical tribunal has found. Martha Mills, 13, had been an inpatient on the Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital in London after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later she experienced a fever, increased heart rate and had a catheter inserted into her vein, which was 'ultimately considered' to be a likely source of the infection that led to her death from sepsis, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing was told. More spikes in her temperature followed, before consultant hepatologist Professor Richard Thompson saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29 at the hospital, one of three locations in the UK which specialise in the treatment of paediatric pancreatic injuries. The on-call consultant left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. He said: 'These changes collectively indicated a sudden and significant deterioration for no clearly identified reason…it was evident that by around 5pm the clinical condition of Martha justified escalation to PICU (paediatric intensive care unit) and this opportunity was not taken.' The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement, said the tribunal. Mr Ince said: 'The tribunal notes that Professor Thompson expressed a preference to prearrange any PICU involvement, rather than having PICU clinicians arrive unexpectedly and cause distress to Martha's parents. 'While the tribunal understands the desire to manage the family anxiety sensitively, this did not, in its view, justify withholding or delaying a clinically indicated escalation of care.' He added: 'The tribunal therefore concluded that the GMC (General Medical Council) has proved its case that Professor Thompson failed to take more aggressive intervention from 12 noon onwards in that he did not escalate Martha to the PICU team for a direct clinical review.' The tribunal also ruled that Prof Thompson should have conducted a direct in-person review and assessment of Martha, including the developing rash, from 5pm, which would have been 'beneficial'. Mr Ince said: 'He would no doubt have discovered that no observations had been taken in respect of Martha from 2pm to at least 4.45pm. 'The tribunal notes that one of the advantages of escalating a patient to PICU would have been an increased level of monitoring. 'Although no explanation has been given to the tribunal for the failure to monitor Martha between 2pm and 4.45pm, this absence of monitoring on the ward would no doubt have been a significant factor in justifying such an escalation.' The tribunal cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's allegations that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash. Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care, before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. At a 2022 inquest into her death a coroner ruled Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. The MPTS hearing in Manchester continues as the tribunal considers whether Prof Thompson's fitness to practise is impaired.
Telegraph
7 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Parental intuition can predict child's serious illness before doctor's tests
Parents can sense when their child is becoming seriously ill before their vital signs show it, according to new research. Experts found that in about one in five cases where a child's health worsened while in hospital, parents raised concerns before doctors became aware. Parental intuition was a better indicator of a child needing intensive care than vital readings including heart rate and abnormal breathing, the study found. It comes after the NHS introduced Martha's Rule last year giving patients, including parents, the right to ask for a second opinion. The protocol is named after Martha Mills, who died aged 13 in 2021 from sepsis. Martha's parents, Merope Mills and Paul Laity, raised concerns about their daughter's deteriorating health to doctors on a number of occasions after she was admitted to hospital with a pancreatic injury caused by falling off her bike. A coroner ruled she would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs of her rapidly worsening condition and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Data from 190,000 hospital admissions For the new study, experts from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, analysed data from almost 190,000 emergency hospital visits. Parents or caregivers were routinely asked: 'Are you worried your child is getting worse?' In almost five per cent of cases, parents said they were concerned their child was deteriorating. The research team found that this concern was 'significantly' linked to the child being admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Children were found to be four times more likely to need ICU admission if parents had raised concerns, compared with children of parents who were not concerned. Researchers also found that parental concern was associated with a higher likelihood that the child would need mechanical ventilation or to be given help to breathe. Parents could prompt earlier treatment The study, published in the journal Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, also found that 'caregiver concern was more strongly associated with ICU admission than any abnormal vital sign', including abnormal heart rate, abnormal breathing or blood pressure. There were 1,900 cases where parental concern was documented along with the timing of abnormal vital signs. The research team noted that in almost one in five cases parents raised concerns about deterioration before vital signs indicated that the child was deteriorating. They added that this could mean that taking parents' views into account could lead to earlier treatment. 'Parents are the experts' Overall, they found that the children of caregivers who voiced concerns were 'more unwell, they were more likely to be admitted to an inpatient ward, and stayed in hospital almost three times as long'. Dr Erin Mills, a lead author from Monash University, said: 'We know that parents are the experts in their children, but stories of parents not being heard, followed by devastating outcomes, are all too common. We wanted to change that.' She said: 'We wanted to test whether parent input could help us identify deterioration earlier – and it can. 'If a parent said they were worried, their child was around four times more likely to require intensive care. That's a signal we can't afford to ignore 'Parents are not visitors – they are part of the care team. We want every hospital to recognise that and give parents permission, and power, to speak up.' In March the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee was told that thousands of patients or their loved ones have sought a second opinion about their NHS care under Martha's Rule. More than 100 patients have been taken to intensive care 'or equivalent' as a result.
The Independent
22-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Doctor ‘doubted judgment' after death of teenager Martha Mills from sepsis
A senior doctor has said he 'doubted my own judgment' after the death of a teenage girl from sepsis, but told a medical tribunal he did not believe he made any wrong decisions in her care. Professor Richard Thompson is accused of a number of failings in his treatment of Martha Mills, 13, at London's King's College Hospital two days before she died in August 2021. More than a month earlier Martha had suffered an injury to her pancreas after she fell off a bike while on holiday in Wales. She was later transferred to King's College Hospital, one of three locations in the UK that specialise in the treatment of children with pancreatic injuries. The consultant hepatologist saw Martha on a morning ward round on Sunday August 29 after she had experienced fevers and an increased heart rate in the days before. She was given intravenous fluids that day as her blood pressure was low, a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel heard. Prof Thompson said: 'She was very much awake and interacting, she was having the fluid. She was clearly not well but she was warm, well perfused, talking and making complete sense.' The fluids were increased from late afternoon when the blood pressure reading was still low. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson at home when Martha developed a rash. Prof Thompson said: 'He gave a description of a rash in many places… it was very suggestive of an allergic rash and not a septic rash. I had no reason to disbelieve his description.' He said the registrar was 'at the most experienced end of a junior doctor that you could have' as he was completing his final months of training. Prof Thompson said he could not recall the figures from blood pressure and blood test readings that were relayed to him before he phoned a consultant colleague to consider whether Martha should be moved to intensive care. The General Medical Council (GMC) says Prof Thompson gave 'outdated' information about those readings which gave the false impression that Martha was stable, and that he also failed to mention her rash. The GMC also says he should have returned to the hospital to review Martha himself after he was informed about the rash and should have acted sooner in recommending a critical care review. Martha collapsed the next morning and was moved to intensive care before she was transferred to Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. After her death Prof Thompson decided he would no longer provide inpatient care as he became 'extremely cautious', the tribunal heard. He said: 'I was doubting my own judgment. I don't believe I made any wrong decisions but I thought it better to remove myself from that environment and contribute to other work in the department.' His barrister Ben Rich asked: 'Did you ever doubt your judgment in Martha's case?' He replied: 'Absolutely. I think I was on record saying that I felt I made a mistake and other times I said I didn't.' Prof Thompson denies all the allegations against him. The hearing in Manchester continues. At a 2022 inquest into her death a coroner ruled Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. Earlier this year the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee was told that more than 100 patients had been taken to intensive care 'or equivalent' as a result of Martha's Rule, and that patients, their loved ones or staff had raised concerns about care using the rule on more than 2,000 occasions.
