Compensation for couple who's baby was stillborn due to medical negligence
A couple received £33k in compensation after their baby was stillborn in October 2007 due to the negligence of medical staff who had inadequately monitored the unborn baby.
On 3 October, the mother was admitted to a hospital of the defendant trust as she was in labour, 13 days past the expected delivery date. She was examined and scanned. A midwife, concerned that the baby was breech, consulted a doctor to examine her and she was monitored infrequently.
When her waters were broken on 4 October at 1.15am, there was meconium-stained liquor present. A midwife attempted to monitor her by CTG but was unable to make a proper connection. A second midwife was called but was also unable to establish a reading and attempts to use a different CTG machine and a fetal scalp electrode were also unsuccessful.
The midwives obtained another CTG machine which also did not produce a reading. A doctor was contacted but was also unable to make the CTG machine work and advised that the midwives try a new fetal scalp electrode. During that period, auscultation of the fetal heart rate was not carried out. At 2.35am the doctor called for an obstetrician. The obstetrician was in theatre, so the attending doctor arranged for an ultrasound scan. At 2.40am it was decided that a caesarean section should be performed. At 2.48am the couple’s baby was stillborn.
The cause of death was recorded as being asphyxia with meconium-stained vernix and placenta, epicardial petechial haemorrhage and generalised brain hypoxia. There was also acute chorioamnionitis.
The hospital trust admitted that there had been inadequate fetal monitoring and that if monitoring had been conducted appropriately, the baby would not have died in utero.
The couple both received bereavement counselling. A major factor in the counselling sessions was the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the details of why their baby had died. The lack of clarity in the explanations about their baby's death which they received became one of the most difficult aspects for them to deal with.
Consistent with our policy when giving comment and advice on a non-specific basis, we cannot assume legal responsibility for the accuracy of any particular statement. In the case of specific problems we recommend that professional advice be sought.
SEE ALSO
Our people
Our cases
Making a claim
