Our clinical negligence team settled a claim against Kingston University Hospital NHS Trust for an alleged negligent failure to diagnose retained products of conception when the claimant presented to A&E with severe post-partum haemorrhage.
Our clinical negligence team settled a claim against Kingston University Hospital NHS Trust for an alleged negligent failure to diagnose retained products of conception when the claimant presented to A&E with severe post-partum haemorrhage. She had given birth to her daughter in March 2011 at Kingston University Hospital. Following the delivery, she complained of heavy blood loss and clots, which is not unusual post delivery, and was advised to observe the loss and to return to hospital if it continued.
The claimant continued to experience heavy blood loss following her discharge from hospital and was subsequently rushed to hospital by ambulance four weeks later by which point she had lost up to half a litre of blood. A gynaecology referral was made and she was diagnosed with infection but no follow up was arranged and the claimant was discharged from hospital on the same day, still suffering from bleeding.
Two days later, the bleeding became so bad that our client called an ambulance and was taken back to hospital. Due to the extent of blood loss, she required a blood transfusion and this time a scan was arranged which confirmed the presence of retained products of conception.
Our client claimed that the degree of bleeding she was suffering should have been investigated and the retained products should have been picked up during the first visit to hospital. It was negligent to have failed to do so. Had she received proper care on her first admission and the retained products been identified, our client would have been admitted and would have undergone a procedure to remove the retained products. This would have avoided her subsequent trauma and consequences of the further bleed and emergency hospital admission and avoided further pain and suffering.
Although the trust initially denied liability when the case was first presented, it eventually conceded and apologised that no follow up was arranged prior to the claimant’s discharge on 3 April 2011. It was accepted that, if this been done, further investigations and subsequent surgery would have been carried out earlier. Following the admission a settlement was negotiated.