Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
This case was heard in open court subsequently, and the judgment is below[1].
While there may be a number of learning points for doctors, the most striking one for me is set out at para.130 [1] with reference to masking of symptoms following intramuscular antibiotics:
"130. My impression is that Dr Roe is a highly competent, thoughtful, caring and (now) experienced consultant paediatrician. His diagnosis of tonsillitis was entirely reasonable based on what he saw when he examined C, and was consistent with the view that had been formed by Dr Rowley. Based on what he saw when he examined C, he had no reason to consider any other diagnosis. However, he fell into the trap laid by the intramuscular antibiotics: he did not sufficiently appreciate that the medication that C had been given may have been masking her symptoms, and that a truer picture of her condition was that portrayed by Dr Dennison. If, as he should have done, he had appreciated that then I have little doubt that intravenous antibiotics would have been administered by, at the very latest, 27 January (and, more likely, on 26 January)."
Re: Court to hear clinical negligence case after remote trial is deemed “undesirable”; negligence established and judgment
Dear Editor
This case was heard in open court subsequently, and the judgment is below[1].
While there may be a number of learning points for doctors, the most striking one for me is set out at para.130 [1] with reference to masking of symptoms following intramuscular antibiotics:
"130. My impression is that Dr Roe is a highly competent, thoughtful, caring and (now) experienced consultant paediatrician. His diagnosis of tonsillitis was entirely reasonable based on what he saw when he examined C, and was consistent with the view that had been formed by Dr Rowley. Based on what he saw when he examined C, he had no reason to consider any other diagnosis. However, he fell into the trap laid by the intramuscular antibiotics: he did not sufficiently appreciate that the medication that C had been given may have been masking her symptoms, and that a truer picture of her condition was that portrayed by Dr Dennison. If, as he should have done, he had appreciated that then I have little doubt that intravenous antibiotics would have been administered by, at the very latest, 27 January (and, more likely, on 26 January)."
Refeferences
[1]https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1610.html
Competing interests: No competing interests