logo
Doctor who failed to spot girl, 13, was suffering from sepsis and died days later will face no disciplinary sanction

Doctor who failed to spot girl, 13, was suffering from sepsis and died days later will face no disciplinary sanction

Daily Mail​11-06-2025
A senior doctor who failed to spot that a 13-year-old girl was suffering from sepsis before she died will face no disciplinary sanctions for failings in his care.
Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills to intensive care at King's College Hospital in London despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of the life-threatening condition.
The on-call consultant also chose not to return to the hospital to assess her in person as her condition deteriorated.
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel sitting in Manchester had ruled those omissions were misconduct, which they described as 'particularly grave', and found his fitness to practise was impaired.
But today the tribunal decided there were 'exceptional circumstances' which justified taking no further action against the world-renowned paediatric liver specialist.
Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021.
Weeks later she experienced a fever and increased heart rate, followed by more spikes in her temperature before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29.
Prof Thompson left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition.
Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature.
Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis.
The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement.
Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31.
Announcing its conclusions on Wednesday, Mr Ince said: 'Professor Thompson has done everything possible to address his failings.
'The tribunal considered that the best way to repair any harm caused by his failings would be for him to continue to provide his specialist expertise at home and abroad.
'To now - some four years after the index event - remove Professor Thompson from practice, even for a short period of time, for one single lapse of judgment in an otherwise exemplary career would, in the tribunal's view, be akin to punishment which is not the role of the MPTS.'
Among the 'exceptional circumstances' cited were that there was no allegation or evidence that Prof Thompson either caused or contributed to Martha's death.
There were also systemic failings regarding how the ward functioned at the time with regard to referrals to the paediatric intensive care unit, said the tribunal.
Mr Ince said: 'A sufficiently clear message has already been sent to the profession and to the public - that even such an experienced doctor as Professor Thompson could still make serious errors of clinical judgment for which he will be called to account.
'The public would be aware that this finding would remain a stain on Professor Thompson's reputation for the rest of his life.'
At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier.
Martha's mother, Merope Mills, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on.
The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern.
Giving evidence, Prof Thompson told the MPTS hearing that he no longer provided in-patient care because he began to 'doubt my own judgment' after the tragic events.
He said he felt 'deep remorse' for Martha's death but did not believe he made any errors in her case, as he denied all the allegations brought by the General Medical Council (GMC).
The tribunal heard he had since completed a training course relating to the management of sepsis and a deteriorating child in paediatric care.
His barrister, Ben Rich, said Prof Thompson has been a dedicated doctor and specialist for nearly 40 years and had never previously been investigated by a regulator.
He said he had a reputation as a 'hard-working and outstanding clinician and researcher, who has an international reputation as one of the leading paediatric liver specialists in the world'.
Mr Rich urged the tribunal members to impose an order of conditions involving supervision on Prof Thompson's registration, but the panel disagreed and said such a measure would be 'unnecessary and artificial', as they opted to take no further action.
Christopher Rose, for the GMC, said that Prof Thompson should be suspended to send a message to the wider public and the wider profession, given the seriousness of the failings found.
The tribunal had cleared Prof Thompson of the GMC's claims that he gave 'outdated, misleading' information on Martha's condition to a consultant colleague in the intensive care unit, and that he failed to mention her rash.
In ruling his fitness to practise was impaired, Mr Ince said: 'There had been a significant potential risk of harm to Martha and it was appropriate to send a message to the profession as to the importance of following the basic and fundamental principles as set out in good medical practice so as to ensure that the potential risks of an adverse outcome are always taken into account.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UK-India trade deal sparks fears over access to cheap medicines for millions
UK-India trade deal sparks fears over access to cheap medicines for millions

ITV News

time14 minutes ago

  • ITV News

UK-India trade deal sparks fears over access to cheap medicines for millions

A newly signed trade agreement between India and the UK has triggered concerns that millions of poor Indians may lose access to affordable life-saving medicines. Civil society groups and health experts say the UK-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA), finalised between two countries, tilts the balance in favour of multinational pharmaceutical corporations and threatens to erode long-standing protections that have allowed India to produce low-cost generic drugs. 'This is not just about trade. It's about whether a person living on ₹200 (£2) a day can afford cancer treatment or survive tuberculosis,' said Jyotsna Singh, co-convenor of the Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatments. At the heart of the controversy are the agreement's intellectual property (IP) provisions, which activists say may restrict the Indian government's ability to issue compulsory licences—legal tools that allow domestic companies to manufacture patented drugs at reduced prices during public health emergencies. India used this provision in 2012 to dramatically cut the price of sorafenib, a cancer drug sold by Bayer under the brand Nexavar. Generic versions slashed the monthly cost by nearly 97%, from ₹2.8 lakh (£2,600) to around ₹8,800 (£80), making it affordable to thousands. 'By discouraging compulsory licensing and promoting voluntary licences, the deal hands over control of access to medicines to the market,' said Prof Biswajit Dhar, a trade expert and former professor at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. 'Voluntary licences often come with strings attached and don't bring the same price reductions.' Weakening India's Patent Safeguards Under the FTA, companies will no longer need to report annually how their patents are being 'worked'—or used—in India. Instead, disclosures can be made every three years, and some information can be kept confidential. Activists say this undermines transparency and makes it harder to prove that a drug isn't available to the public, a key step in applying for a compulsory licence. There are also concerns the deal could open the door to 'evergreening'—a tactic in which companies make minor changes to existing drugs and claim new patents. Indian law currently limits this practice under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, but experts warn the FTA's emphasis on 'harmonisation' of IP standards with Western countries could override such protections. 'This is effectively a backdoor entry for TRIPS-plus provisions,' said K.M. Gopakumar, co-convenor of the Working Group. 'It would push India to grant unnecessary patents, prolonging monopolies and delaying cheaper alternatives.' The Indian pharmaceutical industry supplies more than 60% of global vaccines and a significant share of affordable generics to low- and middle-income countries. Critics say the FTA may limit this capacity and ultimately have consequences well beyond India's borders. Government response The Indian government has promoted the FTA as a landmark deal that will boost exports and attract UK investment in manufacturing, services, and digital trade. Officials insist that India has preserved its ability to protect public health. But rights groups remain unconvinced. 'You cannot negotiate away access to life-saving drugs in the name of free trade,' said Gargeya Telakapalli, a public health campaigner based in Hyderabad. 'The poorest Indians—those with cancer, HIV, diabetes, or TB—are being quietly sacrificed.' Broader implications The deal follows a similar agreement India signed last year with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which also faced criticism for diluting IP safeguards. Observers say the trend may reflect a shift in India's trade policy as it seeks closer ties with Western economies. But for many in India's healthcare and legal communities, the question remains: how much access to medicine is the country willing to give up for a better trade balance? From Westminster to Washington DC - our political experts are across all the latest key talking points. Listen to the latest episode below...

Health warning over counterfeit vodka made with medical-grade alcohol
Health warning over counterfeit vodka made with medical-grade alcohol

Metro

time44 minutes ago

  • Metro

Health warning over counterfeit vodka made with medical-grade alcohol

Health officials in Scotland have warned fans of Glen's vodka to keep an eye out for fake half bottles containing medical disinfectant. Scammers have hijacked the popular brand to sell counterfeit products containing the chemical isopropyl, which is typically used in hospital settings or in hand sanitiser. Food Standards Scotland (FSS) say the fake booze will smell and taste 'very different' to the Glen's product people recognise. Even small amounts of isopropyl can result in abdominal pain, vomiting, dizziness and headaches, they warned. Severe cases can leave drinkers in a coma or even dead. Genuine bottles of Glen's have a laser-etched code between the rear label and the base of the bottle which the fake bottles will not. More Trending Anyone concerned they might have drunk the counterfeit vodka, and who is experiencing symptoms, is urged to contact NHS 24 on 111 immediately. Glen's, one of the cheaper brands of vodka on the market, is a popular target for scammers. FSS has previously sent investigators to seize dozens of bottles of fake spirit using the same label from a shop in Coatbridge, Lanarkshire. And in September last year, the UK-wide Food Standards Agency sent out a warning about another fraud involving isopropyl alcohol in Glen's bottles. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: The one drink you should never order from a restaurant wine list MORE: How a generation-bending TikTok campaign saved a local boozer MORE: Forget about Prosecco — drink this £6.97 sparkling wine from Asda instead

NHS: Strike-hit appointments to be rebooked in two weeks but will impact others
NHS: Strike-hit appointments to be rebooked in two weeks but will impact others

The Independent

time44 minutes ago

  • The Independent

NHS: Strike-hit appointments to be rebooked in two weeks but will impact others

NHS England has said hospitals are aiming to reschedule appointments cancelled due to strikes within two weeks, but warned of knock-on impacts for other patients. Professor Meghana Pandit, NHS England's co-national medical director (secondary care), said that despite the five-day walkout by thousands of resident doctors in England, which began on Friday, local trusts have managed to maintain services with 'minimal disruption'. She told BBC Breakfast: 'If there's any rescheduling or postponement of surgery or appointments then the hospitals try their upmost best to get that appointment rescheduled within two weeks. 'I know it is distressing and even two weeks is too long for somebody to wait and actually that has an impact on the people who who are then displaced at that two week period.' Prof Pandit said there were three 'derogations' granted on Friday, a process which allows hospitals to request striking doctors return to work if there is a risk to patient safety. Nottingham City Hospital reached an agreement with the British Medical Association (BMA) to exempt one doctor from the strike to work on the neonatal intensive care unit. A derogation was agreed for one doctor in the emergency department and another doctor in the ISGM at the Northern General Hospital. The BMA said it had also agreed a derogation for two anaesthetists to work at University Hospital Lewisham on Saturday to ensure patient safety. It comes as Wes Streeting said 'we are doing everything we can to minimise' patient harm. The Health Secretary condemned the strike as 'reckless' and said the Government would not allow the BMA to 'hold the country to ransom'. Sir Keir Starmer made a last-minute appeal to resident doctors, saying the strikes would 'cause real damage'. He added: 'Most people do not support these strikes. They know they will cause real damage… 'These strikes threaten to turn back the clock on progress we have made in rebuilding the NHS over the last year, choking off the recovery.' The BMA has argued that real-terms pay has fallen by around 20% since 2008, and is pushing for full 'pay restoration'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store