The Bordeaux University Hospital was ordered on Tuesday June 21 to compensate the family of a 48-year-old patient who died on March 10, 2018 in hospital, where she had waited more than ten hours to be transferred to intensive care, according to a judgment of the Administrative Court.
Read alsoThe Nantes University Hospital condemned after the suicide of a teenager who denounced a sexual assault
SEE ALSO – Death of Naomi: for lawyers, the call from the SAMU “highlights dysfunctions in the Strasbourg hospital”
“The delay in taking charge of the intensive care unit which resulted from the underestimation of the seriousness of Mrs B’s state of health (…) reveals a defect in the organization and operation of the public hospital service, of such a nature as to engage the responsibility of the CHU of Bordeaux“, underlines the court in its judgment consulted Friday by AFP. The court ordered the CHU to pay the sum of 47,378 euros to the patient’s estate and heirs for their damages suffered.
The patient, suffering from Still’s disease, a rare inflammatory syndrome, had been admitted to the emergency room of the Bordeaux University Hospital on February 28, 2018 after an illness on the plane, where she had been diagnosed with right pneumonia and prescribed antibiotic treatment. The patient, mother of two children, was again admitted on March 8 at 10:00 a.m. to the CHU, at the Haut-Lévêque hospital where she was being followed, with fever and low blood pressure. But his condition worsens and at 12:30 p.m., the Samu is alerted to organize his transfer to the Saint-André hospital of the CHU, 3 km away, which has an intensive care unit. The emergency medical team did not arrive until 8:30 p.m., ten and a half hours after her admission to hospital, to transfer her to intensive care where she died two days later from acute respiratory distress syndrome. .
Read alsoA former head of department at the CHU d’Angers sentenced for sexual harassment
The court held that the “support delayof the patient in intensive care had caused her a loss of chance of survival of around 50%. During the hearing, the CHU’s defense argued that the patient’s care was “according to the rules of the art“and that no causal link could be established”between the alleged breaches and death, the cause of which is not determined“. “No fault can be recognized in the care of Mrs B in the determination of the diagnosis, in the organization of the service and in the monitoring of the patient“, had also underlined the defense of the CHU.
SEE ALSO – Naomi case: the questions that remain unanswered