Woman discovers gauze left inside her after childbirth, hospital faces backlash

[webfact]

A woman in Ratchaburi province experienced severe pain after giving birth, only to discover a piece of gauze had been left inside her. Public outcry followed as the hospital failed to take responsibility for its mistake, causing widespread discussion on social media.

 

The woman, 24 year old Wan, and her mother, 58 year old Leuk, from Photharam district, shared the story with the media. Wan revealed that she gave birth at a local hospital on May 29, when she began to experience pain and discomfort that lasted for several weeks.

 

On June 19, she noticed something coming out of her birth canal while urinating. Upon looking closer, she found a piece of gauze still lodged inside. When removed, the gauze was soaked with blood and pus, and had a foul odour, KhaoSod reported.

 

by Nattapong Westwood

Picture courtesy of KhaoSod

 

Full story: https://thethaiger.com/news/national/woman-discovers-gauze-left-inside-her-after-childbirth-hospital-faces-backlash

 

-- © Copyright Thaiger 2023-06-21

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

[Liverpool Lou]

41 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

 I feel bad for this woman but unfortunately what happened to her is not rare or unique.  

...or, fortunately, remotely serious in her case.

[Gecko123]

Decades ago I worked as a surgery orderly. My recollection is that the surgical gauze used to blot up blood had metallic strips in them and a post operative x-ray was always taken to make sure no gauze had been left behind. Surgical gauze can easily be overlooked when it becomes soaked with blood.

[h90]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Indeed.... But there is a greater degree of accountability for those suffering from the negligence of trained professionals, this of course increases costs and in the US the costs of medical treatment is horrendous, however, there needs to be 'some' strong incentive for the hospitals to maximise the level of professionalism and target a zero mistake culture. 

 

This woman was treated terribly, even after them mistake she was sent home because she did not have cash to pay for the 30 baht treatment and the hosptial refused online transfer (stating 500 baht minimum), she's now worried about infection (hopefully she is now on antibiotics already.

 

Given the publicity I hope this lady will  awarded a 'decent' amount to compensate her for her suffering. 

 

 

I personally know of a few cases of hospital negligence here in Thailand: 

- Child broken arm - hospital x-rayed and spotted the break in the radius, but missed the break in the humerus (upper arm), the Mum was / is an actress, her silence was purchased for 10 million Baht. 

 

- Childs Death after Child Birth (famous hosptial) failed to recognise a 'lung issue' (I don't quite know the exact details), baby effectively drowned - Parents sued hospital and won about 15 million Baht.

 

- Male had a cataract operation, wrong lens put in, had to have the operation a second time because of the mistake (not sure if he is going to sue or not). 

 

 

 

 

from time to time I read about cases in USA and in Europe where the hospital try to deny everything and only cave in when there are lawyer involved

[hotchilli]

53 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Decades ago I worked as a surgery orderly. My recollection is that the surgical gauze used to blot up blood had metallic strips in them and a post operative x-ray was always taken to make sure no gauze had been left behind. Surgical gauze can easily be overlooked when it becomes soaked with blood.

I was always under the illusion that items including gauze were counted going in, and counted coming out?

Maybe this is not the practice in Thailand.

[Smokey and the Bandit]

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

Decades ago I worked as a surgery orderly. My recollection is that the surgical gauze used to blot up blood had metallic strips in them and a post operative x-ray was always taken to make sure no gauze had been left behind. Surgical gauze can easily be overlooked when it becomes soaked with blood.

Aren't they supposed to count how many they use then check they are all removed before closing the wound?

[brianthainess]

TIT no one takes responsibility for anything.

Rule 1. don't loose face,

rule 2 deny  everything

no more rules apply.

[stoner]

9 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

TIT no one takes responsibility for anything.

Rule 1. don't loose face,

rule 2 deny  everything

no more rules apply.

beat me to it. it never ceases to amaze me. i am surprised they didn't find a way to blame the lady for it too.

 

 

[brianthainess]

4 minutes ago, stoner said:

beat me to it. it never ceases to amaze me. i am surprised they didn't find a way to blame the lady for it too.

 

 

Maybe sue for defamation of the hospital. 

[stoner]

2 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

Maybe sue for defamation of the hospital. 

ya and then she names the hospital and they sue her back. lose of face and all. :)

 

[brianthainess]

7 minutes ago, stoner said:

ya and then she names the hospital and they sue her back. lose of face and all. :)

 

Well that's what i was implying the hospital CAN sue Her

[The Theory]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

the hospital failed to take responsibility for its mistake

???? Nobody does anything wrong, and nobody is responsible for nothing. From top to down. 

[stoner]

1 hour ago, brianthainess said:

Well that's what i was implying the hospital CAN sue Her

ok got it now. 

[RobU]

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

...or, fortunately, remotely serious in her case.

That is not true, it is extremely serious. She could have died from anaphalactic shock  and sepsis, poisoned by this Item apart from the very severe pain she would have suffered. I speak as a former theatre nurse who worked in the Gynaecology theatres. Women die regularly throughout the world from the same thing caused by tampons, One of the reasons why Thai women tend to not use tampons.

[Lucky Bones]

8 hours ago, brianthainess said:

TIT no one takes responsibility for anything.

Rule 1. don't loose face,

rule 2 deny  everything

no more rules apply.

Totally correct but not only in Thailand.

I had a surgery "complication" in Oz.

Denial was quick and emphatic.

Unless you are prepared to go through the wringer of a court case it is best to just move on.

So yes - your "no rules apply" sums it up perfectly.

[RobU]

12 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

Decades ago I worked as a surgery orderly. My recollection is that the surgical gauze used to blot up blood had metallic strips in them and a post operative x-ray was always taken to make sure no gauze had been left behind. Surgical gauze can easily be overlooked when it becomes soaked with blood.

they don't routinely do a post op x-ray in the UK its only done if the the post operative swab count is wrong i.e. the scrub nurse checks that all the swabs handed to the surgeon have been returned if there is a discrepancy either too few or sometimes too many (someone opened a packet of swabs without telling the scrub nurse) then an x-ray is performed, The scrub nurse (or Technician) is the person who keeps track of where all the instruments and swabs are  to ensure nothing gets left behind

it seems like either someone lied or this is clinically a very sloppy and badly run hospital. Administratively of course it is very efficient as evidenced by them kicking her out and refusing to take responsibility.

 

Patients suffer the pain and complications of such a mistake and it has taken some victims years to get doctors to authorise an x-ray for this purpose.

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, Lucky Bones said:

Agreed. 

So are in you in the TIT brigade or battalion? 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about the USA have been removed.

[humbug]

14 hours ago, brianthainess said:

TIT no one takes responsibility for anything.

Rule 1. don't loose face,

rule 2 deny  everything

no more rules apply.

It's not about one county called Thailand, it's a country like many that have no or little functioning rule of law, instead law is used for oppression and suck in western capital, these companies, government agenicies, or anybody who thinks they are above the glass ceilling or class system for what ever reason, don't need to service people, unless they think the person could react in a meaningful

way, clearly this lady is looked down on, and any repurcussions through this media story will be forgotten, as the lady cannot ever win in this male-dominant non-rule of law corrupt society

 

Tony Fernandes used to say that Airasia in Asia can always get away with late or service was bad, and if some one complains, nobody needs to do anything to make amends, no regulators will ever care about the customers, in Europe whole different story

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, RobU said:

21 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

...or, fortunately, remotely serious in her case.

That is not true, it is extremely serious. She could have died from anaphalactic shock  and sepsis, poisoned by this Item apart from the very severe pain she would have suffered.  I speak as a former theatre nurse

But, as I said, in this case, she did not.  She did not contract sepsis, she was not in anaphylactic shock (interesting that as an "expert" you couldn't even spell it correctly) and she did not die.   What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[RobU]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But, as I said, in this case, she did not.  She did not contract sepsis, she was not in anaphylactic shock (interesting that as an "expert" you couldn't even spell it correctly) and she did not die.   What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

Unfortunately you are wrong it is very relevant to her case. The potential for harm was significant. i.e. she was put in harm's way by this act. Are you starting a troll argument? Firstly you make an insulting comment that a very dangerous situation was not 'remotely serious' . The woman was in serious pain. Then you change tactics when I put you straight. Whether or not she contracted sepsis is irrelevant she was in a very dangerous situation it was extremely serious.

[Liverpool Lou]

10 minutes ago, RobU said:

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But, as I said, in this case, she did not.  She did not contract sepsis, she was not in anaphylactic shock (interesting that as an "expert" you couldn't even spell it correctly) and she did not die.   What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

Expand  

Unfortunately you are wrong it is very relevant to her case. The potential for harm was significant. i.e. she was put in harm's way by this act.

I am not wrong, what happened in her case is 100% relevant to her case.   In reality she suffered very little harm and arguing about hypotheticals is pointless.

[RobU]

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I am not wrong, what happened in her case is 100% relevant to her case.   In reality she suffered very little harm and arguing about hypotheticals is pointless.

You claimed that leaving a swab in the vagina was 'not remotely serious' you are wrong and I corrected you this woman will have been in serious pain from the infected swab. That is why she went back to the hospital. It is a very serious medical negligence issue

[Liverpool Lou]

9 minutes ago, RobU said:

You claimed that leaving a swab in the vagina was 'not remotely serious'

No, I did not, I posted that in this woman's case the outcome was not remotely serious.   That is what I claimed.

 

I agree that the act of leaving a swab could be dangerous, in itself, but it wasn't in this case.

[RobU]

36 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I did not, I posted that in this woman's case the outcome was not remotely serious.   That is what I claimed.

 

I agree that the act of leaving a swab could be dangerous, in itself, but it wasn't in this case.

When a swab is left inside a patient it is dangerous full stop. There is no potentiality about it. It will case serious problems such as pain (which this woman suffered) , mutilation and death if not removed. Your response was to a comment that 'what happened to her is not rare or unique' and you added 'or remotely serious'. and yes I can't spell anaphylactic I was always marked down in my essays for it, I have a problem with that particular word

Edited June 22, 2023 by RobU
Responding to a comment about my spelling

[sherwood]

Could have, would have, should have and so the argument goes on.

Let this be a lesson in better practice for the Medical Professionals as they wish to be called.

[h90]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But, as I said, in this case, she did not.  She did not contract sepsis, she was not in anaphylactic shock (interesting that as an "expert" you couldn't even spell it correctly) and she did not die.   What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

That is relevant, because it shows sloppy work and the next one may get the problems.

[richard_smith237]

24 minutes ago, h90 said:

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But, as I said, in this case, she did not.  She did not contract sepsis, she was not in anaphylactic shock (interesting that as an "expert" you couldn't even spell it correctly) and she did not die.   What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

That is relevant, because it shows sloppy work and the next one may get the problems.

Agreed....   high risk of sepsis... completely relevant to the thread.

 

In fact 'given' the details in the report infection had set in and the onset of sepsis was very likely imminent. 

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

  What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

 

 

 

Wrong...  its extremely relevant..    you use the word 'could' as in argued what 'could have happened'...  'could' is the wrong word...  if left untreated infection and sepsis is something that 'would' have happened....   this is not a hypothetical situation, this the path of deterioration her condition would have taken without further treatment. 

 

 

 

 

[jacko45k]

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed....   high risk of sepsis... completely relevant to the thread.

 

In fact 'given' the details in the report infection had set in and the onset of sepsis was very likely imminent. 

Absolutely... it frequently kills, also blinds and causes a lot of suffering. 

To trivialize this incident in as much as saying 'well in this case she did not die.' (due to her own awareness) is disingenuous... turning a blind eye toward life threatening ineptitude.