Select location
Membership information
0800 561 9000
Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Menu
Refine my search

Abnormal blood results – alleged failure to follow up

Post date: 09/11/2021 | Time to read article: 3 mins

The information within this article was correct at the time of publishing. Last updated 10/11/2021


By Dr Smriti Tandon, Medicolegal Consultant, Medical Protection

Ms D, a 60-year-old woman, underwent a total hip replacement under the care of consultant orthopaedic surgeon Dr R. 

She recovered well from the surgery, however her routine postoperative blood tests were slightly abnormal. She was discharged on day 3 post-procedure and was advised by the resident medical officer, Dr B, to see her GP for follow-up blood tests. The abnormal results were not communicated to the consultant in charge, nor was it documented on Ms D’s discharge summary. 

Four days after her discharge, Ms D attended her GP requesting an appointment as she was advised that she needed blood tests. This was booked in for two weeks later, as there had been no indication of how urgently these needed to be done. 

Twelve days after she had been discharged, Ms D felt unwell and attended the Emergency Department. She was admitted to intensive care and sadly died three days later.

An inquest took place. Witness statements were obtained from the staff involved. Dr B recalled verbally advising Ms D that she should see her GP for follow-up blood tests. He requested that this instruction be entered into Ms D’s discharge letter. However, he did not prepare the letter, nor did he review it prior to it being sent to Ms D’s GP. The hospital process at the time was for the nursing staff to complete all discharge documentation with no clinician sign-off required.  

The nurse advised that she had printed the recent blood tests and attached them to Ms D’s discharge summary. She verbally confirmed with Ms D that she was aware of the need to follow-up with her GP. This conversation was not documented. 

Dr R, the consultant in charge, had not been made aware of the abnormal results prior to Ms D’s discharge. He confirmed that had he been aware, he would also have advised GP follow-up and repeat blood tests within a few days. 

Outcome

Following the inquest, the coroner concluded that the failure to ensure that a follow-up blood test did not cause or contribute to the death. He identified concerns with the discharge policy of the hospital. In particular, there was a lack of guidance on how post-discharge investigations should be arranged or communicated, by whom and when. The hospital took steps to ensure their discharge policy was rewritten, with clearer identification of roles and responsibilities. 

As our member Dr B was not directly criticised, he avoided the need to self-refer to the Medical Council.

A letter of response was served to the claimant’s solicitors denying causation and the claim was withdrawn. 

Learning points 

This case highlighted the importance of ensuring that recommendations for follow-up are robustly documented in the notes and communicated effectively to the patient, along with expected timescales. 

Clear and timely documentation to the GP would have indicated the reason for Ms D’s attendance and may have altered the timing of the appointment that was offered. 

Had Ms D misunderstood the instructions in any way, there would have been no way of ensuring adequate follow-up was present. 

Junior doctors working in rotation at various hospitals need to ensure they are familiar with local processes and clear on their responsibilities. 

It is vital to ensure that supervising consultants are made aware of any problems with their patients prior to discharge. These conversations must always be documented. Consultants and juniors should establish expectations from each other on which matters should be escalated. 

Although Dr R was not criticised in the claim, it is important for consultants to be satisfied that a clear follow-up plan is in place for their patients.

Ultimately, the overall responsibility for care does lie with the consultant in charge and therefore they must be content that appropriate care has been given. It is often difficult to document telephone conversations when covering multiple sites, but this must be done at the earliest opportunity. 

As local discharge policies vary between hospitals, consultants must be aware of any nuances and be content that plans on discharge will be carried out. They should ensure that all letters are checked for accuracy as close to the point of discharge as possible. 



 

Share this article

Share
Load more reviews
Rating

You've already submitted a review for this item

|
New site feature tour

Introducing an improved
online experience

You'll notice a few things have changed on our website. After asking our members what they want in an online platform, we've made it easier to access our membership benefits and created a more personalised user experience.

Why not take our quick 60-second tour? We'll show you how it all works and it should only take a minute.

Take the tour Continue to site

Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Membership information
0800 561 9000

Key contact details

Should you need to contact us, our phone numbers are always visible.

Personalise your search

We'll save your profession in the "I am a..." dropdown filter for next time.

Tour completed

Now you've seen all of the updated features, it's time for you to try them out.

Continue to site
Take again