COUNTING OF SWABS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 59, 11 March 1939, Page 13

COUNTING OF SWABS

CARE IN OPERATIONS

A DOCTOR'S APPEAL

QUESTION OF RESPONSI-

BILITY

(By Air Mail, from "The Post's" London Representative.)

LONDON, February 13.

A new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal on the appeal of Dr. R. P. Osborne, resident surgeon at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, Manchester, against whom £616 3s 6d damages were awarded at Manchester Civil Assizes at the suit of Mrs. Elizabeth Mahon, of Hancock Street, Stretford. Mrs. Mahon sued Dr. Osborne in respect of the death of her son, Thomas Mahon, who was operated on at Park Hospital by Dr. Osborne for abdominal trouble.

It was admitted by Dr. Osborne that a swab was left in the abdomen after the operation, and that this was discovered and removed at a second operation. Dr. Osborne denied all allegations of negligence. The jury awarded Mrs. Mahon £216 3s 6d under the Fatal Accidents Act and £400 under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act for floss of expectation of life/ 1 ■

Lord Justice Scott said his view was that in spite of the obvious anxiety of Mr. Justice Atkinson and the special jury to see justice done, the surgeon had not had a satisfactory trial and the verdict and judgment should be set aside and a new trial ordered. It was the practice of the profession to leave the provision of the; swabs and their-after-count to the nursing staff. The doctor could not be made responsible for the count, with the need to concentrate his mind on the multiform difficulty of a major operation. In this instance he asked the sister if the swabs had been counted and if the count was correct and was told that it was.

It could hot be said that the Judge gave the jury sufficient direction that before they found negligence they must be satisfied that the surgeon had fallen short of the standard of care of an ordinary skilful practitioner in the circumstances. Lord Justice MacKinnon concurred with Lord Justice Scott. ■ Lord Justice Goddard, in a dissenting judgment, said the duty of the nurse to count did not absolve the surgeon from the duty of exercising reasonable care. He thought that the evidence might warrant the jury in finding that the surgeon did not make a sufficiently careful search for swabs.

Lord Justice Scott said that the appeal would be allowed by a majority and a new trial ordered. Leave was given to appeal to the House of Lords.