A Wisbech man has been awarded a six-figure settlement after failings in care following cataract surgery caused complete sight loss in his right eye. Following a clinical negligence claim, in which Stephen Hutchinson, 66, was represented by regional law firm Tees, Anglia Community Eye Service (ACES) admitted liability for serious failings in care leading to avoidable vision loss from retinal detachment.
ACES also admitted liability for failing to put in place appropriate care and diligence following surgery. Mr Hutchinson should have received a regular follow-up every 1-3 days for up to six weeks after surgery.
Mr Hutchinson learned through his clinical negligence claim that his sight loss was entirely avoidable.
“Despite the gravity of the failing, ACES resisted patient safety learning from the case, putting future patients who might face similar circumstances, at risk,” said a spokesperson for Tees.
Mr Hutchinson first attended ACES in Wisbech in October 2019 for cataract surgery.
“Unfortunately, during the surgery Mr Hutchinson suffered a tear to a part of his eye called the posterior capsule,” said the spokesperson.
“This type of complication is a significant risk factor for retinal detachment, a serious and sight-threatening medical condition that requires urgent intervention to prevent permanent vision loss.
“However, Mr Hutchinson was not informed of the tear following his surgery and was discharged without any specific guidance on the signs of retinal detachment.”
Over the next week, Mr Hutchinson made five calls to the clinic and attended a follow-up appointment at ACES, citing concerns about deteriorating vision in his right eye.
Tees says that each time he was given reassurances that everything would be fine.
“Multiple opportunities for urgent review and treatment were missed, meaning that by the time retinal detachment was suspected, it was already far too late,” said the Tees spokesperson.
Following a complaint made by Mr Hutchinson, ACES admitted that the patient’s care and outcomes may have been better if he had been seen sooner and provided with a full explanation of what had happened in his surgery.
It did not, however, acknowledge that its care had fallen below a reasonable standard.
Tees says that despite the intervention of Mr Hutchinson’s local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), ACES declined to raise Mr Hutchinson’s case to a Serious Incident under the NHS’s Serious Incident Framework.
A Serious Incident is an event in healthcare where the potential for learning is so significant that it warrants the use of additional resources to mount a comprehensive investigation.
The law firm spokesperson added: “This highlights a significant issue with the Serious Incident Framework, whereby one care provider can disagree with the classification of a healthcare event as a Serious Incident, preventing an investigation from taking place and resulting in missed opportunities to learn lessons and protect future patients.
“Mr Hutchinson felt he had no choice but to bring a clinical negligence claim against ACES.”
The legal claim was led by associate solicitor Sarah Stocker; she said Mr Hutchinson’s case was successful in securing admissions of liability from ACES, a letter of apology and a damages settlement commensurate with the impact his vision loss has had on his life.
Ms Stocker said: “It is regrettable that Mr Hutchinson was unable to get answers through the complaints process and had to learn through a lengthy and stressful clinical negligence claim that his vision loss was completely avoidable.
“His case highlights the complexities of navigating the complaints procedure following a clinical negligence incident, and the barriers that currently stand in the way of patients getting answers to what happened to them.
“The loophole that currently exists in the Serious Incident Framework is particularly concerning.
“No care provider should be able to unilaterally decide whether or not a healthcare event constitutes a Serious Incident, as this has clear ramifications for patient safety and the ability to prevent future clinical negligence incidents.”
