one patienthad got himself an oxygen meter. it was 94% when I rang him--when good was 97%.
I told him to seek help if more breathless and if O2 drops to 90 or below.
I cannot understand why this doctor was ever charged with negligence in the first place.
In the first place she correctly suspected dehydration and possibly pneumonia and ordered appropriate investigations. She initiated therapy by giving a bolus of I/v/ fluid.
She DID treat the pneumonia with I/v/ antibiotic. The fact there was a delay in this is explained by IT delays, not being told the xray was available and having other patients to deal with.
She DID inform the consultant. The fact that she did not ask him to see the patient was because as far as I can make out,she felt the boy was getting better. i.e. she used her clinical judgement.
In my opinion, although the management in this case might not have been totally perfect, this is the worst miscarriage of justice affecting a doctor I have ever heard of.
As a retired GP I would like to comment on 2 things.
First, who made the decision to prosecute in the first place?
Secondly, I read that the expert witness called this a 'barn door' case of sepsis.
I am not party to all the facts, but in my opinion this is very strong, emotive language which should not have been used n court.
as a retired GP doing out of hours sessions which are desperately needed,
I totally agree with the contents of this letter.
very good work.
using e.g. apixaban for DVT in drug user seems a good idea, provided there is no severe liver damage.
I think e cigarettes should be considered in patients with COPD having tried and failed other methods to stop smoking. It could be especially appropriate in patients with severe mental illness where smoking and early death are common.