Our client lost her second baby in circumstances that were entirely avoidable. The birth of her first child was induced as a result of slowed growth. This meant that subsequent pregnancies would be at a higher risk of the baby having slowed growth – potentially leading to a stillbirth in the absence of timely medical intervention.
Her second pregnancy was therefore to be consultant led with more frequent monitoring. During her second pregnancy she was admitted into her local hospital on multiple occasions suffering with abdominal pain.
She suffered with coelic disease but was not provided with any dietary advice nor increased monitoring. Our client also had a family history of diabetes. This should have prompted the hospital to conduct a glucose tolerance test 28 weeks into the pregnancy however, they failed to do this.
Thirty five weeks into her second pregnancy the baby’s growth had slowed. Three weeks later, another scan showed that the baby was small for its gestational age and its movements had reduced. In accordance with guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), our client should have been advised that continuing with the pregnancy would likely result in a stillbirth.
Timely medical intervention should have been offered in order to deliver her second baby safe and well, as had happened with her first child.
The hospital instead ignored the red flags and failed to follow national guidelines stating that in these circumstances, an induction should be offered without delay. Instead, the consultant booked an induction for three days later.
Our client was admitted back into the hospital one day before her induction was due suffering with severe abdominal pain. Sadly, her second child was delivered stillborn. It was discovered that she had suffered a placental abruption cutting the vital lifeline to her baby.
Had the hospital reacted to the serious symptoms that all was not well – namely the baby’s growth slowing (with the same history from a previous pregnancy) and reduced movements – a CTG would have been offered to provide more information about the baby’s condition to inform which timely delivery option would have been best suited to prevent serious harm.
The hospital did not conduct a CTG, nor arrange a timely intervention leading to our client suffering the devastating, and entirely preventable, loss of her child. The consequences of her loss had a significant impact on her wellbeing.
She suffered PTSD, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and repeated nightmares as a result of her loss. We secured a settlement of £64,000 for her suffering.
The hospital did not admit liability.