This tragic case concerns the failure to adequately monitor our client’s husband, during his admission to a cardiac ward following a heart attack.
In October 2022, our client’s husband (Mr X) attended A&E at the Darent Valley Hospital complaining of chest pain and feeling short of breath. An ECG showed he’d had a heart attack, and he was admitted for further investigations.
A coronary angiography showed severe diffuse 3-vessel disease, which was likely to require bypass surgery. The consultants decided his case would be discussed with St Thomas’ Hospital. He was then transferred to the coronary care unit for cardiac care and continuous cardiac monitoring pending the discussion with St Thomas’ Hospital.
During that evening Mr X suffered another heart attack. However, the alarm on the monitoring systems was set too low to be audible by any of the nursing staff.
At 21:32hrs the monitoring system recorded ventricular fibrillation, which deteriorated into asystole at 21:48hrs. However, it was not until 22:00hrs that the nurses heard the bedside critical monitor alarm and attended Mr X. By that time, he was unresponsive and despite attempts to resuscitate him lasting 46 minutes, he was declared dead.
Sue Man was instructed to pursue the claim and instructed a cardiology expert to advise on the standard of care expected in a coronary care unit. He was also instructed to advise on Mr X’s outcome, if he had not received negligent treatment.
In our expert’s opinion, if Mr X had received resuscitation within 5 minutes of first going into ventricular fibrillation, he would have survived resuscitation and undergone bypass surgery. Bypass surgery was likely to have been successful. However, even with successful bypass surgery, he was likely to suffer with symptoms of heart failure which would have required lifelong treatment. He would not have been fit for work and would have required a cardiac defibrillator. However, he would have been able to perform all usual daily activities within the home.
Whilst the defendant admitted liability in the early stages of the claim, they disagreed with our valuation of the claim. Specifically, they disagreed with the extent to which Mr X would have been able to perform the activities of daily living had he survived.
Despite the dispute, the claim still settled for a six-figure sum.
The client’s comments were: “Thank you once again for your help with the case from start to finish, I will definitely be recommending you to others who need a solicitor for their cases.”