Sepsis Negligence

Perhaps the easiest way to remember the signs and symptoms of sepsis is to use the acronym ‘SEPSIS’ as follows:

• Slurred speech or confusion

• Extreme shivering or muscle pain

• Passing no urine (in a day)

• Severe breathlessness

• It feels like you’re going to die

• Skin mottled or discoloured

If you are concerned you or someone else may have sepsis, call 112 or 999 for immediate emergency medical assistance.

In some circumstances, patients who are diagnosed with sepsis may have originally become infected during a hospital stay, perhaps during a medical or surgical procedure. This may be due to poor sterilisation of surgical instruments, lack of hygiene, or placing vulnerable patients in close proximity with patients likely to pass infection. In such cases, it may be possible to bring a claim for medical negligence leading to sepsis if a clear link can be proven between the actions of a medical professional, the resulting infection, and ultimately sepsis.

Sepsis Medical Negligence may also occur if a patient with the condition presents to their GP or any other entry point to the healthcare system such as A&E, but there is a failure to spot the signs and make a correct diagnosis. Given the vigilance of medical staff across the healthcare system towards sepsis, such events should be extremely rare. Given the speed by which sepsis can progress, urgent intervention is needed (in the form of antibiotics in the early stages); any delay in making a diagnosis can make the difference between a complete recovery and a fatal outcome.

To bring a claim for Sepsis due to Medical Negligence, it will be necessary to provide evidence that:

• The medical care you received was below a satisfactory standard (i.e. that another medical professional would not have made the same error), and

• This negligence caused you to contract sepsis.

To prove your case, we will compile evidence, including medical records, and seek expert medical opinion.

Claims following Sepsis due to Medical Negligence may cover two areas of loss:

• Pain and suffering due to the injury; and

• Specific costs resulting from the injury caused. This may cover costs already incurred, such as transport, accommodation, and medical treatment, and expected future expenses, such as physical therapy and care costs. The costs you receive will be based on the precise injuries suffered and the circumstances of the case.

Case Overview:

The plaintiff presented at a hospital in Dublin complaining of pain in his chest.

After he was admitted, a cannula was inserted into his arm and in the coming days he developed sepsis.

He spent several weeks in hospital experiences both physical and psychiatric injuries as a result of developing sepsis.

Lavelle Partners obtained expert evidence from the UK that the proper anti-septic techniques were not carried out prior to the insertion of the cannula and this on the balance of probabilities led to the development of sepsis.

Proceedings were issued on behalf of the plaintiff and the case was successfully mediated for a substantial sum with costs in advance of the trial date.

Case Overview:

Our client was diagnosed with ectopic adrenocorticotrophic hormone ("ACTH") as his adrenal glands were producing excessive level of cortisol.

He was initially treated with medication but he was advised that such treatment was temporary and he would ultimately require removal of both adrenal glands.

Despite the option of bilateral adrenalectomy being available, a decision was made to proceed initially by way of a left adrenalectomy and thereafter, following a period of recuperation, to undertake a right adrenalectomy.

He was admitted to hospital to undergo a left laparoscopic adrenalectomy.  At surgery, the operation note indicates that a “massively enlarged” adrenal gland was identified, which was described as expanding in front of the renal vessels and below the pelvis of the kidney.  In the course of dissecting the mass off the renal vessels, severe bleeding was encountered which necessitated converting the surgery to an open procedure.  Ultimately however, the operation note confirms “adrenalectomy completed”.

Despite the content of the operation note, the subsequent histology report revealed that the left adrenal gland had not been removed.  CT examination confirmed that the left adrenal gland remained in situ; the surgery that had in fact been undertaken was a partial pancreatectomy up to the pancreatic neck.

In the aftermath of his surgery, he required prolonged admission to the intensive care unit and his condition was complicated by pancreatic leak and sepsis.  He underwent a bilateral adrenalectomy and a splenectomy, the latter procedure being required in order to repair the injury to the pancreas created at his initial surgery.

This case was mediated a week in advance of the trial and ultimately settled for a substantial sum.