Lack of informed consent for TVT

A woman involved in a complex clinical negligence case has been awarded £90,000 by Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust.

Donna White, who was 42 at the time of the incident, suffered significant symptoms of recurrent incontinence, voiding dysfunction, regular cystitis and right lower limb pain.

She required repeat surgery in March and December 2013 and then further surgery which resulted in urinary retention with self-catheterisation and pelvic pain.

Donna alleged that her ongoing symptoms with associated care needs and the need for incontinence products and other treatment were as a result of the Defendant Trust’s negligence.

Donna was represented in her compensation claim by Fletchers’ medical negligence solicitor, Kate Lozynska. Donna instructed Fletchers to act on her behalf as she felt that the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust failed to obtain her informed consent for the procedure carried out in October 2008.

She claimed that they failed to advise her of other surgical options, of the risks associated with TVT secur sling (tension-free vaginal tape) and the limited information available on the TVT secur, and also by failing to recommend the retropubic TVT sling.

This was partially admitted by the Defence. However, no admissions were made as to whether standard TVT procedure would have made any difference.

In relation to further treatment in 2013, the Claimant further alleged that the Defendant failed to undertake further investigation to elucidate the cause of urinary loss including urodynamic study and ambulatory urodynamics and that the video urodynamic test performed was inadequate, more particularly, the voiding phase of the study was not performed and no incontinence was demonstrated.

The Defendant was also negligent by performing repeat surgeries on the Claimant when stress incontinence had not been diagnosed. This was admitted in the defence.

The Defendant Trust also admitted that it was substandard to perform surgery in March 2013 in the absence of proven stress incontinence. The Defendant accepted that the surgery in March 2013 would have been avoided. The Defendant admitted that Donna was not adequately consented for the surgery in March 2013 and that surgery should not have been carried out at this time.

In terms of causation it was admitted that with appropriate care the Claimant would not have undergone surgery in March 2013. She would therefore have avoided the surgical procedure, post-operative urinary retention, the need for self-catheterisation and the procedure in December 2013.

Due to Donna’s ongoing health problems the court processes had to be stayed but the matter settled for £90,000.