4.5 Article

Neonatal hypoglycaemia: learning from claims

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-310936

关键词

Neonatal hypoglycaemia; Litigation; Infant Feeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Neonatal hypoglycaemia is a potential cause of neonatal morbidity, and on rare but tragic occasions causes long-term neurodevelopmental harm with consequent emotional and practical costs for the family. The organisational cost to the NHS includes the cost of successful litigation claims. The purpose of the review was to identify themes that could alert clinicians to common pitfalls and thus improve patient safety. Design The NHS Litigation Authority (NHS LA) Claims Management System was reviewed to identify and review 30 claims for injury secondary to neonatal hypoglycaemia, which were notified to the NHS LA between 2002 and 2011. Setting NHS LA. Patients Anonymised documentation relating to 30 neonates for whom claims were made relating to neonatal hypoglycaemia. Dates of birth were between 1995 and 2010. Interventions Review of documentation held on the NHS LA database. Main outcome measures Identifiable risk factors for hypoglycaemia, presenting clinical signs, possible deficits in care, financial costs of litigation. Results All claims related to babies of at least 36weeks' gestation. The most common risk factor for hypoglycaemia was low birth weight or borderline low birth weight, and the most common reported presenting sign was abnormal feeding behaviour. A number of likely deficits in care were reported, all of which were avoidable. In this 10-year reporting period, there were 25 claims for which damages were paid, with a total financial cost of claims to the NHS of 162166677. Conclusions Acknowledging that these are likely to be the most rare but most seriously affected cases, the clinical themes arising from these cases should be used for further development of training and guidance to reduce harm and redivert NHS funds from litigation to direct care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据