Antibiotic allegations
Post date: 15/03/2018 | Time to read article: 2 minsThe information within this article was correct at the time of publishing. Last updated 14/11/2018
Miss G, 23, presented to GP Dr Q with a four-day history of fever, cough and green/brown phlegm. On examination, she was afebrile with no chest signs except expiratory wheeze.
Dr Q’s clinical impression was of a viral infection. The clinical findings were supported by the fact that Miss G was on day four of a five-day course of amoxicillin, prescribed by her dentist, which had not produced an improvement in her symptoms.
Given the history and examination findings, Dr Q did not feel Miss G required a further course of antibiotics; in any event, Miss G was already receiving the correct antibiotic and course duration, as set out in the national guidelines for empirical cover of low risk community-acquired pneumonia.
Dr Q advised Miss G about viral infection, and performed appropriate safety-netting with instructions in the event of the symptoms worsening, new symptoms developing or a failure to improve.
Miss G did not re-present to Dr Q, but did see other doctors when her cough failed to improve, and she received further courses of antibiotics at this point. She later fractured a rib during a bout of coughing, but made a full recovery.
Miss G made a claim against Dr Q, alleging a failure to prescribe any or an adequate dosage of antibiotics to treat the symptoms of fever and productive cough. She also alleged there was a failure to advise against continuing amoxicillin, which allegedly had not been prescribed for Miss G’s symptoms and which had only one more day left of the course, and finally alleged that her chronic cough led to her rib fracture.
This approach by Medical Protection enabled the claim to be dealt with rapidly, without the need to instruct an independent expert witness or generate expenditure on an expert report.
The response served by Medical Protection highlighted the appropriate history and examination performed by Dr Q and the lack of clinical indication for antibiotics. It also explained that Miss G was already on first-line empirical antibiotic treatment, started by another clinician for a different problem, and that advice to stop the course a day early would not have been appropriate because incomplete antibiotic courses promote the growing problem of antibiotic resistance.
Miss G’s solicitors discontinued the claim after receiving the firm response from Medical Protection.
Dr Q’s clinical impression was of a viral infection. The clinical findings were supported by the fact that Miss G was on day four of a five-day course of amoxicillin, prescribed by her dentist, which had not produced an improvement in her symptoms.
Given the history and examination findings, Dr Q did not feel Miss G required a further course of antibiotics; in any event, Miss G was already receiving the correct antibiotic and course duration, as set out in the national guidelines for empirical cover of low risk community-acquired pneumonia.
Dr Q advised Miss G about viral infection, and performed appropriate safety-netting with instructions in the event of the symptoms worsening, new symptoms developing or a failure to improve.
Miss G did not re-present to Dr Q, but did see other doctors when her cough failed to improve, and she received further courses of antibiotics at this point. She later fractured a rib during a bout of coughing, but made a full recovery.
Miss G made a claim against Dr Q, alleging a failure to prescribe any or an adequate dosage of antibiotics to treat the symptoms of fever and productive cough. She also alleged there was a failure to advise against continuing amoxicillin, which allegedly had not been prescribed for Miss G’s symptoms and which had only one more day left of the course, and finally alleged that her chronic cough led to her rib fracture.
Expert opinion
In this case, Medical Protection was able to serve a robust response denying liability, based on our legal team’s assessment and the quality of Dr Q’s medical records, supplemented by a helpful detailed account provided by Dr Q.This approach by Medical Protection enabled the claim to be dealt with rapidly, without the need to instruct an independent expert witness or generate expenditure on an expert report.
The response served by Medical Protection highlighted the appropriate history and examination performed by Dr Q and the lack of clinical indication for antibiotics. It also explained that Miss G was already on first-line empirical antibiotic treatment, started by another clinician for a different problem, and that advice to stop the course a day early would not have been appropriate because incomplete antibiotic courses promote the growing problem of antibiotic resistance.
Miss G’s solicitors discontinued the claim after receiving the firm response from Medical Protection.
Learning points
- On being notified of a claim, members may be shocked and aggrieved to see allegations that are factually incorrect and may in addition be medically misconceived. In this case, we see contradictory allegations, where Dr Q is simultaneously being criticised for failing to stop an antibiotic and for failure to prescribe an antibiotic.
- Medical Protection is accustomed to allegations of this nature and takes care to address them fully, with a comprehensive rebuttal of all factual and clinical inaccuracies. In this we are greatly assisted by thorough accounts of incidents from our members, and especially quality documentation in the form of contemporaneous medical records.
