WOOLHOUSE: PATIENT SENT HOME DESPITE BLOOD CLOT AFTER ABORTION

A nurse allowed a bleeding patient to go home after an abortion without consulting a doctor, a hearing was told today (mon).

Sister Jayne Woolhouse also gave a woman a termination without meeting legal requirements to have the procedure signed off by two doctors.

She landed another of her patients in hospital by giving medication she was allergic to because she had not read the woman’s medical notes.

Days later she carried out a scan that she was not qualified to perform, and also failed to update a patient’s records after administering medication, the Nursing and Midwifery Council heard.

Helen Fleck, for the NMC, said Woolhouse began work as a sister in the Pregnancy Advisory Service (PALS) within Rotherham General Hospital in 2009.

‘There were a number of different concerns that were raised about the registrant’s practice by one of her colleagues, Jennie Swift,’ said Ms Fleck.

Ms Swift told the hearing that Woolhouse had been suspended on 11 June 2009, after she raised serious concerns about her competency.

But after she left, concerned patients calling in revealed that the sister had told a bleeding woman to go home in breach of guidelines.

‘She had passed a large clot of blood at home and was understandably concerned,’ said Ms Swift.

Notes showed that after the termination, a ‘palm-sized’ clot of blood and 200ml of blood had been removed by nurses, followed by another 200ml on blood at 2.30pm.

‘Despite this, the patient was discharged from the pregnancy advisory service at 3pm and Jayne Woolhouse had documented there was minimal bleeding,’ she said.

The nurse was required to check with a doctor before discharging any woman who had lost more than 250ml of blood, the hearing was told.

‘Where a patient is going to be discharged, their blood loss must be measured, and it must be minimal before a patient can be discharged by a nurse,’ said Ms Fleck.

‘It is said on that occasion, despite there having been 400mls blood loss….that the patient was nevertheless discharges without seeking the advice of a doctor,’ said Ms Fleck.

She is also said to have carried out a scan on another woman concluded that it was all clear.

Ms Fleck said: ‘Unfortunately, she was not trained to actually pick up those items – she had no formal training, she was not qualified to do it.’

It was later repeated after the concerned woman called up after suffering bleeding, and found that some possible remnants remained.

Ms Swift had first raised concerns after Woolhouse gave a Voltarol suppository to a patient who was allergic to the painkiller on 22 May 2009.

Details of the allergy were written in the woman’s medical notes, which were apparently not read by the nurse.

It led to the patient suffering an allergic reaction and having to be admitted to hospital for observation, the panel heard, though luckily she suffered no long term ill effects.

Days later on 8 June, Woolhouse gave another patient a drug to induce abortion without fulfilling a legal requirement to have to procedure signed off by two doctors.

‘You will see that the patient was scheduled for an abortion on that day,’ said Ms Fleck.

‘Part of the legal requirement for that procedure is that two doctor’s signatures are required before the procedure can take place.’

A copy of the form shown to the panel had two doctor’s names, but only one had signed it, she said.

The nurse then allegedly failed to update the woman’s drug records after administering the drug Misoprostol on 10 June and failed to record her blood pressure before discharging her later the same day.

Ms Fleck said the error was significant as patients could not be discharged by nurses unless their blood pressure was in the normal range, but there was no way of telling if this had been the case.

Woolhouse did not attend her central London hearing today, but sent a written response, admitting that she gave Voltarol on 22 May 2009 to a patient who had a documented allergy to the drug.

She further accepted failing to obtain signatures from two doctors for a patient’s abortion on 8 June 2009 and failing to sign and date a patient’s drug administration record on 10June.

However, she denies failing consult a doctor before discharging a patient who had lost more than 400ml of blood on 10 June and discharging another patient on the same day without taking her blood pressure.

The nurse further denies carrying out a scan for retained products of conception that was ‘outside her level of competence’ for another patient the following day.

The hearing continues.

Ends.