No disciplinary sanction for doctor's ‘grave' failures in care of Martha Mills
Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis.
The on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person as her condition deteriorated.
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel sitting in Manchester had ruled those omissions were misconduct, which they described as 'particularly grave', and found his fitness to practise was impaired.
However, on Wednesday the tribunal decided there were 'exceptional circumstances' which justified taking no further action against the world-renowned paediatric liver specialist.
Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021.
Weeks later she experienced a fever and increased heart rate, followed by more spikes in her temperature before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29.
Prof Thompson left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition.
Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature.
Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis.
The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement.
Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31.
Announcing its conclusions on Wednesday, Mr Ince said: 'Professor Thompson has done everything possible to address his failings.
'The tribunal considered that the best way to repair any harm caused by his failings would be for him to continue to provide his specialist expertise at home and abroad.
'To now – some four years after the index event – remove Professor Thompson from practice, even for a short period of time, for one single lapse of judgment in an otherwise exemplary career would, in the tribunal's view, be akin to punishment which is not the role of the MPTS.'
Among the 'exceptional circumstances' cited were that there was no allegation or evidence that Prof Thompson either caused or contributed to Martha's death.
There were also systemic failings regarding how the ward functioned at the time with regard to referrals to the paediatric intensive care unit, said the tribunal.
Mr Ince said: 'A sufficiently clear message has already been sent to the profession and to the public – that even such an experienced doctor as Professor Thompson could still make serious errors of clinical judgment for which he will be called to account.
'The public would be aware that this finding would remain a stain on Professor Thompson's reputation for the rest of his life.'
At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier.
Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on.
The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern.
Giving evidence, Prof Thompson told the MPTS hearing that he no longer provided in-patient care because he began to 'doubt my own judgment' after the tragic events.
He said he felt 'deep remorse' for Martha's death but did not believe he made any errors in her case, as he denied all the allegations brought by the General Medical Council (GMC).
The tribunal heard he had since completed a training course relating to the management of sepsis and a deteriorating child in paediatric care.
His barrister, Ben Rich, said Prof Thompson has been a dedicated doctor and specialist for nearly 40 years and had never previously been investigated by a regulator.
He said he had a reputation as a 'hard-working and outstanding clinician and researcher, who has an international reputation as one of the leading paediatric liver specialists in the world'.
Mr Rich urged the tribunal members to impose an order of conditions involving supervision on Prof Thompson's registration, but the panel disagreed and said such a measure would be 'unnecessary and artificial', as they opted to take no further action.
Christopher Rose, for the GMC, said that Prof Thompson should be suspended to send a message to the wider public and the wider profession, given the seriousness of the failings found.
The tribunal had cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's claims that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash.
In ruling his fitness to practise was impaired, Mr Ince said: 'There had been a significant potential risk of harm to Martha and it was appropriate to send a message to the profession as to the importance of following the basic and fundamental principles as set out in good medical practice so as to ensure that the potential risks of an adverse outcome are always taken into account.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Domestic abuse is ‘public health emergency', experts say after critical NHS report
Domestic abuse is a public health emergency, experts have claimed, after a report concluded that the NHS is failing victims by not training staff to spot and respond to the signs of domestic violence. About one in four people (21.6%) in England and Wales aged 16 years and over have experienced domestic abuse, affecting 12.6 million people, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. Analysis shows that the NHS has more contact with victims and perpetrators than any other public service. But new research by the charity Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse (Stada) claims the health service is missing vital opportunities to save lives. It examined all the official reviews of domestic abuse-related homicides and suicides published in 2024 and found that about 90% cited safeguarding failings by the NHS. Lack of domestic abuse training was the most frequent criticism identified. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance advises mandatory training for frontline NHS staff in identifying and properly caring for domestic abuse victims. But Stada's analysis found that such training was 'sporadic and inconsistent'. The report also highlights repeated failures by the NHS to record risks, share information and get victims help from other specialists such as alcohol and mental health services, and independent domestic violence advisers. The findings follow a separate study published in the Lancet Regional Health Europe, which calculated that 26% of all women who died by suicide, and were known to secondary mental health services, had been a victim of domestic violence. The government is due to publish its strategy this summer on how to meet its pledge to halve violence against women and girls by 2034. But without urgent action, this ambition will not be achieved, the Stada report concludes. The NHS should fund mandatory, standardised domestic abuse training for frontline health professionals and specialist support such as mental health domestic violence advisers, the study recommends. Data recording and information sharing should also be improved. Cherryl Henry-Leach, the chief executive of Stada, said: 'We call on the government to recognise domestic abuse as a public health issue. 'Treating [domestic abuse] solely as a criminal justice issue costs lives. The NHS has more contact with victims and perpetrators than any other public service, making it uniquely positioned to address this crisis.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Tim Woodhouse, a suicide prevention specialist and author of the Churchill Fellowship report on suicide and domestic violence, said: 'Domestic abuse is a public health emergency. The level of physical and mental pain imposed on victims (and their children) by perpetrators is immense and we know that, for many, that mental torture becomes too great and they end up taking their own life. 'I've calculated that 1,800 people a year could be dying in domestic abuse-related suicides every year. This is a tragically high waste of life, and a national scandal.' Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: 'Healthcare workers are often the first, and only, point of contact for victims of abuse and it is essential they are equipped to identify, signpost and safeguard victims who need support. As this report shows, the consequences of inaction can be serious harm, including death. It's time the government took action on repeated recommendations in domestic homicide reviews and ensured all health professionals receive comprehensive training, including on the risk posed by domestic abuse-related suicides.' Prof Kamila Hawthorne, the chair of the Royal College of GPs, said given the trusted relationships GPs have with patients, 'it is concerning to hear that opportunities to help victims might be being missed'. More training would be welcomed and valuable, she added, 'as long as these are appropriately funded, take into consideration the existing training that GPs receive on safeguarding, and the workload pressures we face daily'. An NHS spokesperson said: 'All NHS staff are required to complete safeguarding training on domestic violence and abuse to give them the skills and knowledge they need to support victims and survivors, and this training is currently being updated.' A government spokesperson said: 'We remain resolute in our mission to tackle domestic abuse and put a system in place that protects victims, supports their journey to justice and holds perpetrators to account. 'Healthcare professionals are often the first lifeline for domestic abuse victims – playing a vital role in supporting them to overcome trauma and rebuild their lives – and we have prioritised funding to deliver an additional 345,000 NHS talking therapies interventions to ensure survivors get the support they need. 'Through our plan for change, we are developing a coordinated approach across government, underpinned by a new strategy to be published later this year, to prevent domestic abuse and protect victims.' In the UK, call the national domestic abuse helpline on 0808 2000 247, or visit the Men's Advice Line or Women's Aid. In the US, the domestic violence hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233). In Australia, the national family violence counselling service is on 1800 737 732. Other international helplines may be found via
North Wales Chronicle
2 days ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law
The Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday, but opponents have vowed to continue their resistance in the unelected chamber. The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz of to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lord's and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. He added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.' A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care. 'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.' Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'. In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
Rhyl Journal
2 days ago
- Rhyl Journal
Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law
The Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday, but opponents have vowed to continue their resistance in the unelected chamber. The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz of to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lord's and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. He added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.' A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care. 'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.' Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'. In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
