An out of court settlement of tens of thousands of pounds has been awarded to a young woman who suffered avoidable pain due to a negligent delay in diagnosing her ectopic pregnancy.

Adam Wright, a specialist Clinical Negligence Solicitor at Setfords Solicitors, was instructed to represent a young woman who suffered avoidable severe pain after George Eliot Hospital failed to make a timely diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilised egg implants and grows outside the uterus, most commonly in a fallopian tube.

The Claimant, who wishes to remain anonymous, was known to be in early pregnancy when she developed symptoms of abdominal pain. She attended her GP, who advised her to attend Accident & Emergency at the George Eliot Hospital in Nuneaton.

Upon attending Accident & Emergency, ectopic pregnancy was queried as a possible diagnosis. Despite this, a blood test was taken, and the Claimant was sent home with antibiotics, believing to have developed a urine infection.

The Claimant re-attended Accident & Emergency 2 days later, complaining of left-sided cramping pain. She underwent an ultrasound scan, which reported that an ectopic pregnancy could not be excluded. She was told that she was likely experiencing a miscarriage, and, erroneously, no further blood tests were taken. She was sent home with a repeat ultrasound scan arranged for 14 days after that.

Four days later, the Claimant attended her GP. She reported that she had been told that she was miscarrying, was continuing to experience pain, and felt anxious and abandoned. The GP attempted to contact the hospital to expedite her scan but could not secure a new date.

The following day, the Claimant phoned the hospital to enquire if they could bring her scan appointment forward. She was told that the doctor had made a plan, so this was to be maintained. Having spoken to a midwife friend, the Claimant questioned the hospital as to why she had not received a further BHCG blood test. (BHCG is a hormone produced during pregnancy that should generally double every 48 to 72 hours. BHCG results that fail to follow this pattern can be of concern). The midwife called the Claimant back shortly after that to inform her that the scan could now be brought forward and that she would consider whether a repeat BHCG blood test was required.

The Claimant phoned the hospital again the following day to emphasise the importance of a second BCHG blood test and express her concern that she thought she needed one. The midwife spoke to two separate doctors. One believed that no further blood test was required, while the other felt she needed one. In light of this, arrangements were made for the Claimant to have a BCHG blood test that same day.

Two days later, the Claimant attended for her ultrasound scan. Upon attending the Early Pregnancy Unit, she was told that, due to unforeseen circumstances, there were no sonographers available to perform her scan. A further BHCG blood test was taken, and the Claimant was sent home with a new ultrasound appointment four days later.

However, the Claimant felt that she was not being heard and had lost trust in the team at George Eliot Hospital. She, therefore, made her way to Accident & Emergency at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. She underwent an ultrasound scan which confirmed the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. The fallopian tube on the left side was still intact, although it was close to rupturing and was noted to be bleeding. She was treated with Methotrexate to terminate the ectopic pregnancy and was admitted.

She received a call from the George Eliot Hospital to discuss her blood results during her admission. The Claimant informed them that she was currently admitted to a different hospital to treat her ectopic pregnancy. The Claimant was discharged home after three days.

After that, she continued to suffer from left-sided abdominal pain and had to re-attend hospital on several occasions. The pain disturbed her occupation, which required her to be on her feet throughout the day.

Around this time, she contacted Adam Wright, a Clinical Negligence Solicitor at Setfords Solicitors, to investigate the standard of care she had received and determine if any errors in care had caused or contributed to her ongoing pain.

After obtaining the medical records, an expert in Obstetrics & Gynaecology was instructed. The expert produced a report opining that there had been a number of negligent failures in care. In the expert’s opinion, there had been a failure to elicit a sufficient medical history, a failure not to have repeated the BHCG blood tests when the Claimant attended 48 hours after her first attendance, and a failure to have made a diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy during the Claimant’s second attendance.

The expert opined that, in the absence of these failures in care, the Claimant’s ectopic pregnancy would have been diagnosed some ten days sooner. She would have received earlier treatment, thereby avoiding the pain and suffering she went on to endure until the diagnosis was confirmed. Furthermore, the expert believed that there had been bleeding from the fallopian tube during the period of delay, which had caused adhesions to form, being the cause of her ongoing pain.

Following the expert evidence, formal allegations were submitted to the Trust. Their lawyers, NHS Resolution, investigated the allegations. They provided a formal response admitting that the Trust breached its duty of care and that she would have been offered Methotrexate management in the absence of these failings. However, no admissions were made as to when Methotrexate treatment would have commenced. And the Claimant was asked to prove that her ongoing pain was related to the negligence.

After that, expert evidence was sought from a Psychiatrist. Their role was to report whether the Claimant suffered an injury to her mental health due to the failures in care. The expert reported that she had developed a short-lived Adjustment Disorder, a recognised Psychiatric disorder.

We also obtained expert evidence from a Gynaecologist with expertise in fertility medicine to report upon whether the Claimant had suffered an injury to her fertility and determine the most likely cause of her ongoing pain. The expert examined the Claimant and reported that she had developed adhesions due to the bleeding that occurred during the negligent delay. He recommended that she have a procedure to divide the adhesions to resolve her pain. He also formed the opinion that there had not been an injury to her fertility.

Following receipt of the additional expert evidence, settlement negotiations commenced. Whilst it remained disputed that the Claimant’s ongoing pain was related to the negligence, a settlement was agreed in the new year, with the Claimant securing damages in an out of court settlement equating to tens of thousands of pounds. However, the Claimant’s motivation for bringing the claim was to ensure that the Trust learned from these failings and to take on board patient concerns to prevent any future similar incidents.