NMH: concerns raised before foetal abnormality misdiagnosis.

political analyst

In this week's edition of The Sunday Times, John Mooney wrote that a hospital consultant made a protected disclosure to the minister for health in 2018 raising concerns about the National Maternity Hospital's (NMH) clinical genetic services before a pregnancy was terminated in March 2019 after a fatal foetal abnormality - Edwards' syndrome - was mistakenly diagnosed.

The baby's parents are suing the NMH in the High Court. They claim they were not given the opportunity to talk to a consultant clinical geneticist (CCG), who might have advised them to wait for the results of a second test. The independent review promised by the NMH has not yet commenced due to legal issues.

In a letter sent to both Simon Harris and Dr Tony Holohan, the consultant said the plan to outsource genetic and lab services to Birmingham Women's Hospital could have "catastrophic consequences for current and future patients" because it would deprive the hospital's medical staff of access to a CCG on site for issues relating to patient care but would be provided with telephone access to a genetic counsellor, who has no clinical qualifications.

In a reply, the Department of Health (DoH) said the consultant hadn't set out how the proposed outsourcing would have catastrophic consequences - a requirement under the 2014 Protected Disclosures Act. An official, who suggested that the matter be brought to the attention of the Ireland East Hospital group, wrote:

Management at the hospital will undoubtedly claim that the decision to outsource those particular services was taken in the context of the overall proper functioning and operation of the hospital.

The consultant instructed solicitors to write to Harris in June 2019 to reinstate his complaint after the termination case became public knowledge. In response, the DoH said it would undertake a fresh assessment of his allegations but later told the consultant to contact the hospital group as it didn't set out a specific threat to any named party.

Last week, the DoH said it couldn't comment on protected disclosures but could provide assurance any disclosures received are appropriately dealt with. The NMH said it was unaware of the DoH's receipt of the letter and confirmed it was in discussions with providers including the Birmingham hospital on the provision of perinatal genetic services.

I believe that the publicly-known details of the case vindicate the concerns expressed by opponents of the repeal of the 8th amendment.

PS: it would take too long to find the original thread on this case. Besides, I think it is better to have a fresh thread.

McGinniesta

Where to start with this?

Quantum Erasure

political analyst wrote: »

...

it would take too long to find the original thread on this case. Besides, I think it is better to have a fresh thread.

Its here, if anyone wants to have a look
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057981363

Although I'd agree, new info, new thread.

...the consultant said the plan to outsource genetic and lab services to Birmingham Women's Hospital could have "catastrophic consequences for current and future patients" because it would deprive the hospital's medical staff of access to a CCG on site

In a reply, the Department of Health (DoH) said the consultant hadn't set out how the proposed outsourcing would have catastrophic consequences - a requirement under the 2014 Protected Disclosures Act.

the DoH said it would undertake a fresh assessment of his allegations but later told the consultant to contact the hospital group as it didn't set out a specific threat to any named party.

The 2014 Protected Disclosures Act is to do with protecting whistleblowers from repercussion, I dont get its relevance here

political analyst

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Its here, if anyone wants to have a look
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057981363

Although I'd agree, new info, new thread.



The 2014 Protected Disclosures Act is to do with protecting whistleblowers from repercussion, I dont get its relevance here

The relevance is that it's the context in which the consultant expressed concerns.

By the way, the original thread is in After Hours. I'm aware that the moderators have designated the Current Affairs forum for discussion of serious matters.

political analyst

Why were the baby's parents not given the opportunity to talk to a consultant clinical geneticist (CCG), who might have advised them to wait for the results of a second test?

keano_afc

political analyst wrote: »

Why were the baby's parents not given the opportunity to talk to a consultant clinical geneticist (CCG), who might have advised them to wait for the results of a second test?

Very reasonable questions and the parents deserve answers.

Sadly, they might be waiting a long time, due to the negative publicity this case will generate.