Pregnant woman suffered avoidable distress because of poor explanation

What happened

Scans showed that Ms F's baby was very small in the womb and Ms F was extremely distressed. Believing that her baby would be seriously disabled because she had caught a virus, she decided to terminate the pregnancy.

The Trust agreed to carry out the procedure but because it could not do this on the date Ms F had chosen, it referred her to another hospital for the first stage of the procedure. Doctors at that hospital said there was not enough evidence to terminate the pregnancy and arranged further tests. Ms F went ahead with the pregnancy and had a baby girl.

Ms F complained to the Trust about her care. The Trust said that the virus meant that there was a 25% chance her baby would be seriously disabled. Ms F said she had been misinformed about this and was given to understand that the risk was higher.

What we found

The Trust had not given Ms F a clear enough explanation of its view of the risk that her baby would be disabled. This meant that Ms F's ability to make a fully–informed decision about whether to proceed with the pregnancy was reduced. There was also a delay in carrying out a test that might have helped. As part of referring Ms F to the other hospital, the Trust should have found out whether the other hospital would be willing to carry out the termination. The failings in Ms F's care added to her distress at a very difficult time.

Putting it right

The Trust apologised to Ms F for not giving her an adequate explanation of the risk that her baby would be disabled. It also paid her £750 in recognition of the distress this caused. It agreed to draw up plans to improve its process for referring patients to other hospitals. As a result of Ms F's experience the Trust has already made some other improvements to how it cares for patients who test positive for this virus.