Our hope is lessons will be learnt through Indya
4:23pm Thursday 6th November 2008
I read Dr Chris King’s letter “Blame misdirected in tragic Indya case” (The Argus, October 31) with utter disbelief.
Indya Trevelyan was my daughter. Had Dr King bothered to do a little more background research before dismissing the report on Indya’s death as being biased to the irrational opinions of a grieving parent then he may have thought twice about causing my family even more pain.
We sat through three full days of testimony at the inquest, reliving the week that led to her death in minute detail, hoping the facts would speak for themselves.
The statement that Indya’s death was preventable is not just our belief but was the conclusion of the hospital trust’s own internal investigation. It said: “Indya’s preventable death arose out of false assumptions and weak communication.”
Dr King ignores the fact that Indya was treated in hospital for three days before she became so critically ill that a tracheostomy was the only option. There were opportunities over this period for antibiotics (there is evidence that Indya’s was a bacterial form of croup), early intubation (an X-ray carried out 24 hours before her surgery showed her narrowed airway) or transfer to a more experienced hospital, any of which may well have saved her.
Dr King being a paediatric anaesthetist could also potentially be in the position of being responsible for the immediate post operative care of another child like Indya at some point. I would ask him if he is aware of the importance and use of stay sutures in relocating a dislodged tracheostomy tube in a child?
This lack of vital knowledge was the difference between the anaesthetist left with sole responsibility for Indya, struggling for eight minutes to replace her tube while she was deprived of oxygen, and the returning surgeon taking just five seconds to do so using the stay sutures.
The surgeon made no attempt to share or to inquire about awareness of this simple technique before he handed over responsibility for Indya.
On top of all this, the fact that the hospital had no guidelines for the operation, the questions over the operation itself (still subject to independent review) and serious complications being overlooked during her resuscitation add up to a catalogue of false assumptions that meant that Indya stood almost no chance.
The fact that the coroner has taken Indya’s death seriously enough to issue a report under rule 43 to prevent future deaths and that some of the medical staff who gave testimony were willing to question Indya’s treatment give us some hope that these failures will be addressed.
We are not looking for someone to blame but we do want to ensure that no other child has to face the assumptions in the treatment that Indya faced. It’s clear this is something that we need to speak up and fight against.
Nigel Trevelyan, Old Brighton Road, Pease Pottage, Crawley