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.
Dear Editor
It is reported [1], “But he failed to appreciate sufficiently that the intravenous penicillin given by the GP could be masking her symptoms and that a truer picture of her condition was the one painted by the GP”. Earlier, Dyer says[1], “The GP, Mark Dennison, had given her intramuscular penicillin”, so it is clear, the subsequent reference to “intravenous” penicillin is not correct.
Further para.130 of judgment [2], confirms that correct reference should have been to “intramuscular” rather than “intravenous” antibiotics:
“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.
Re: NHS trust was negligent in failing to recognise child’s serious bacterial infection, says High Court; error in report
Dear Editor
It is reported [1], “But he failed to appreciate sufficiently that the intravenous penicillin given by the GP could be masking her symptoms and that a truer picture of her condition was the one painted by the GP”. Earlier, Dyer says[1], “The GP, Mark Dennison, had given her intramuscular penicillin”, so it is clear, the subsequent reference to “intravenous” penicillin is not correct.
Further para.130 of judgment [2], confirms that correct reference should have been to “intramuscular” rather than “intravenous” antibiotics:
“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.
References
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2527
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1610.html
Competing interests: Have responded to this judgment previously