Heraeus Medical, a German firm that supplies approximately 75% of the bone cement used by the NHS, was temporarily forced to halt production following a fault in a packaging machine at its main site.

Whilst bone cement production has since restarted, national guidance was issued by NHS England to alleviate concerns regarding procedures that require the cement at both waiting list and emergency level. At the time of that guidance, the NHS estimated that only around two weeks’ supply remained, creating a potential gap of six to eight weeks while Heraeus Medical addressed its supply issues.

Bone cement is a critical component in many hip and knee replacements, as well as certain revision and infection-management procedures. With Heraeus Medical indicating that supply limitations are expected to last for up to two months, the NHS’s immediate response was to prioritise urgent cases and patients in the greatest clinical need. However, further developments have since emerged, and NHS Supply Chain has confirmed that two clinically assured alternative products have now been secured in an effort to avoid disruption to both waiting list and emergency care provision to patients.

Short-Term Solutions

Without suitable alternative arrangements, the shortage would have inevitably raised difficult questions about delay and decision-making for patient care in upcoming weeks, particularly as the NHS remains responsible for the care delivered to patients and owes every patient a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in the provision of treatment.

In addition to managing the remaining Heraeus Medical stock, the NHS has now sourced alternative bone cement from Zimmer Biomet and Johnson & Johnson. The products from the respective suppliers have been described as “clinically assured” and are intended to maintain continuity of care at both a waiting list and emergency level.

Sourcing alternative bone cement could materially reduce short-term risk for the NHS, but clinical negligence concerns may still arise if avoidable harm results from unreasonable delay or unjustified planning decisions, despite the NHS’s proactive response to the unexpected supply disruption.

Looking Ahead

For a patient, the experience of delay can be deeply distressing, particularly where pain and reduced mobility are already part of daily life and months of waiting for appropriate surgery have already been endured. When multiplying that experience across the tens of thousands of patients awaiting hip and knee replacements on NHS waiting lists alone, clear communication, appropriate monitoring and careful risk assessment remain imperative in ensuring that required standards of care continue to be met.

It is hoped that the securing of alternative bone cement should significantly reduce the possibility of what could have been widespread postponements, but what remains to be seen is how the NHS will manage distribution of the new bone cement stock to mitigate the possibility of avoidable harm to patients.

Where concerns arise that treatment has been unreasonably delayed or that harm has resulted from substandard management during this period, legal advice may be appropriate. Contact our team of specialist Medical Negligence Lawyers today to see how we can help.

Article written by Mason Hallam, Trainee Solicitor in our Medical Negligence team

The post Safeguarding Standards of Care Amidst the NHS Bone Cement Saga appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

The ruling has clarified a new position for child claimants in clinical negligence cases; the previous of which stood for over forty years.

The Previous Position

In essence, ‘lost years’ refer to the period of life that a person can expect to lose because negligence has shortened their life expectancy. As that person would likely have earned income and supported themselves or others, monetary sums in the form of ‘damages’ are sought by the victim to compensate for the earnings and financial benefits that they are now highly unlikely to ever receive.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, the recovery of ‘lost years’ damages were constrained by the Court of Appeal case of Croke v Wiseman [1982]. In that case, the Court held that young children could not recover lost years damages, though adults could. The rationale behind this was largely rooted in two concerns:

• Dependants – The Court ruled in Croke that ‘lost years claims’ were connected to whether the injured person had, or might one day have, financial dependants. This was inconsistent with previous prominent cases dealing with ‘lost years’ compensation such as Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] and Gammell v Wilson [1982], which made no such principle.
• Speculation – As it is likely to be relatively more difficult to make assumptions about a child’s education, career path and income decades into the future as opposed to an adult, the Court’s view on assessing ‘lost years’ compensation for children was that it was too difficult to predict based on available evidence.

As a result, although adults could receive compensation for the income they would lose during their shortened lifespan, children injured at birth or in early childhood were largely unable to secure ‘lost years’ compensation.

The Effect of CCC

In short, the Supreme Court have now made it clear that children can, in principle, recover ‘lost years’ damages in the same way as adults can.

It is now the responsibility of the Court to assess the evidence available in each case and determine ‘lost years’ compensation using established methods, which can include actuarial tables (such as the ‘Ogden’ tables) and other statistical evidence. Many of these established methods have been introduced and implemented since Croke and have improved the feasibility and consistency of estimating ‘lost years’ damages.

As a result, the law now treats shortened life expectancy consistently so that so far as compensation can allow, everyone can be put back in the position that they would have been in had the negligence or injury not taken place. After over forty years, the focus is on whether the financial loss can be demonstrated, not whether the person is old enough or whether they have (or will ever have) anyone that is dependent on them.

Heightened focus will undoubtedly be placed on ensuring that ‘lost years’ compensation for victims of negligence remains proportionate and based upon reliable, robust evidence.

Our team of specialist Medical Negligence Lawyers are dedicated to providing expert guidance and helping people through every step of the way of such claims. Contact us today to see how we can help.

Article written by Trainee Solicitor, Mason Hallam

The post The ‘Lost Years’ Now Found – Exploring CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

The review has identified “weaknesses in leadership, clinical governance, organisational culture and contract management over many years” leading to cancers being missed and many women receiving surgery more extensive than was medically necessary. This included the removal of lymph nodes and mastectomies.

The BBC have identified that nearly £6million has been paid out by the trust to clinics that were run privately by their own breast cancer surgeon.

Over 200 cases have been identified of patients who have suffered due to the trust’s treatment, leading to the medical records of 1,6000 patients being examined.

This follows a separate review that took place in July 2025 by the Royal College of Surgeons after concerns were raised.

The women that underwent treatment at County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust have told the BBC that they felt ‘butchered’ after the treatment they received, and that the unnecessary delays they experienced in both diagnosis and treatment lead to the experience feeling significantly more stressful and upsetting.

Alongside the failings in both diagnosis and treatment, many women have described their experience as having a lack of compassion, and that it took their dignity from them.

The trust’s board have put an ‘action plan’ in place in response to these reviews. They have confirmed that they will look at strengthening leadership and accountability. Trust Chief Executive Steve Russell has apologised to the affected patients, saying “you put your trust in us and in some cases that trust was not met. We didn’t offer the high quality care you needed and deserved.”

Our Medical Negligence team hear regularly from individuals and families who have been affected by sup-par cancer treatment.

Whilst we recognise the current pressures faced by NHS staff, the issues raised in these reviews can lead to avoidable harm, including:

•             Unnecessary or extensive surgery

•             Failure to perform timely procedures

•             Delay in treatment leading to permanent injury or even death.

We’re here to help

Contact us today for confidential advice if you have concerns about treatment you or a loved one received at The County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (or elsewhere). Our team, are true specialist Medical Negligence Lawyers, dedicated to helping people in situations like this.

Article written by Medical Negligence Paralegals, Abi Scott & Eloise Locker.

The post Investigations into breast cancer treatment at County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

This assessment, published by NHS England, marks the first time such national rankings have been made public. The league tables rate the performance of NHS trusts across seven key areas, including:

•           Waiting times

•           Emergency care performance

•           Cancer treatment access

•           Ambulance response times

•           Surgical backlog management

•           Financial sustainability

•           Patient flow and access to services

These figures allow members of the public to compare the performance of local hospitals — but they also raise serious questions about patient care standards, especially where delays or inadequate treatment may have had a serious impact on health outcomes.

A Disappointing Result for UHCW

UHCW, which oversees both University Hospital Coventry and Hospital of St Cross in Rugby, found itself only narrowly ahead of Countess of Chester Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, which ranked 133rd and 134th respectively.

In response to the results, UHCW’s Chief Executive Professor Andy Hardy expressed disappointment but reaffirmed the trust’s commitment to improvement.

“We are disappointed by our position in the national oversight table and we are looking at all the metrics to see where we can use our improvement methodology to make positive changes for our patients,”

How Do Other Local Trusts Compare?

The local picture isn’t entirely bleak. Nearby South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Warwick Hospital, was ranked 25th out of 134.

Meanwhile, George Eliot Hospital in Nuneaton came in at 121st place.

In the mental health sector, Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust, responsible for community and mental health services, was placed 51st among non-acute NHS trusts.

Ambulance trust league tables have also identified that West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust ranked 6^th out of the 10 trusts.

Government’s View – Transparency or Pressure?

The Health Secretary Wes Streeting defended the release of these performance tables, describing them as a tool to increase transparency and accountability across the NHS and enabling patient choice.

However, some trusts have voiced concerns about whether the chosen metrics truly reflect the complexity of modern healthcare delivery, especially in underfunded or overburdened areas.

What This Means for Patients

At our firm, we regularly hear from individuals and families who have been affected by medical delays, surgical errors, or mismanaged care — often in the hospitals flagged in these national performance tables.

Whilst we recognise the challenging conditions faced by NHS staff, persistent underperformance can lead to avoidable harm, including:

• Missed or delayed diagnoses
• Surgical complications
• Inadequate emergency care
• Poor post-operative follow-up

We’re Here to Help

Contact us today if you have concerns about treatment you or a loved one received at University Hospital Coventry, Hospital of St Cross or any other Trust identified in the league tables. Our specialist team are true specialist Medical Negligence Lawyers, dedicated to helping people in situations like yours.

Article written by Medical Negligence Solicitor Elizabeth Bellamy

The post University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Ranked Among Worst in England appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

The University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) NHS Trust acknowledged that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) only recommends using temozolomide for six months. However, it was revealed recently that at least one patient received the drug for over 15 years!

Chief Executive Officer at UHCW, Prof. Andy Hardy, told the BBC HERE , “We take very seriously any allegation that care provided by a member of staff, past or present, may have fallen below the standards we would expect for our patients. I can confirm we are undertaking an internal review of this matter and, once that has been completed, we will consider what further steps may be necessary.”

Temozolomide is used to treat an aggressive form of brain tumour called glioblastoma. Only 2% of patients with this type of tumour survive longer than 10 years.

The discovery of these extended chemotherapy treatments has prompted calls for a thorough investigation and accountability for the affected patients. Brindley Twist Tafft and James, home to Coventry and Warwickshire’s leading medical negligence team, is closely monitoring the situation and offering support to those affected. Medical negligence law allows patients who have suffered harm due to substandard care by medical professionals to seek compensation. This legal framework ensures that healthcare providers are held accountable for their actions and that patients receive the justice they deserve.

The internal review by UHCW will be important in determining the extent of the situation and ensuring that lapses in patient care do not occur in the future.

Please contact our expert Medical Negligence team for confidential advice if you or a close one has been affected in any way.

The post Clinical Negligence in Coventry: Long-Term Chemotherapy Raises Concerns appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

As reported by the BBC in this report, concerns have been raised regarding the state of maternity services at Leeds Teaching Hospitals (LTH), with serious allegations of chronic understaffing and substandard care, potentially amounting to clinical negligence.

An experienced clinical staff member, who chose to remain anonymous, described the service as “completely broken,” emphasizing that women and babies are not receiving the care they deserve. Lisa Elliott, a former temporary maternity support worker, described care as “chaotic” and highlighted instances of staff displaying a lack of empathy towards patients.

Elliott, who began working in the hospitals in 2020 and witnessed a CQC inspection in 2024, expressed doubts about the “good” rating given to maternity services. She reported her concerns about staff attitudes but felt they were not adequately addressed. These issues raise serious questions about potential clinical negligence, as the failure to provide adequate care could have significant repercussions for patients.

Prof Phil Wood, chief executive of LTH, apologized to those affected and pointed out the hospital’s role as a specialist centre for critically ill babies. He stressed the difficulty and potential misleading nature of comparing LTH’s neonatal mortality data with other hospitals.

Chris Dzikiti, the interim chief inspector of healthcare at CQC, confirmed that LTH’s maternity services are under close scrutiny. He noted that inspections were conducted last month following concerns from families and ongoing risk monitoring, with the findings to be published soon.

A spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care reiterated the government’s commitment to learning from recent investigations to ensure safe, personalized, and compassionate care for women and babies. They emphasized support for trusts failing in maternity care to make rapid improvements and announced plans to work with NHS England to train thousands more midwives.

This situation underscores the critical need for continual oversight and improvement in healthcare services, with legal implications for the trust and accountability to the affected families. The potential issues of clinical negligence call for immediate and effective measures to ensure that the standards of care are met and maintained.

We see too many articles of this nature (frankly any is too many) such as:

• The Ockenden report concerning Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals, where ‘significant or major concerns’ around the maternity care provided by the trust were identified in a total of 201 deaths (including 12 maternal deaths), 131 stillbirths and 70 deaths during the neonatal period. 
• A major review into maternity services in Nottingham
• And In East Kent

And in August 2024 the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman warned that women and babies are being put at risk after a worrying rise in the number of investigations about maternity care. Read the report here.

If you have been affected by any of these issues, please feel free to contact our specialist team of Medical Negligence Lawyers for free, confidential and informal advice in the first instance.

Article written by Head of Medical Negligence Tom Barnes.

The post Concerns Raised Over Maternity Services at Leeds Teaching Hospitals appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

The Importance of Diabetic Foot Care

Proper foot care is paramount for individuals with diabetes. Diabetic neuropathy, a common consequence of chronic high blood sugar levels, reduces sensation in the feet, making patients unaware of injuries or infections. Peripheral arterial disease, another complication, impairs blood flow, thus delaying healing. Combined, these factors create a high risk for non-healing ulcers and severe infections.

Preventative Measures

Routine foot examinations by healthcare professionals are essential. These should include:

• Visual inspection for cuts, blisters, and signs of infection.
• Assessment of blood flow and sensation.
• Education on proper foot hygiene and self-examination techniques.

Preventative care also involves managing blood sugar levels, addressing any foot deformities with appropriate footwear, and ensuring regular podiatric consultations.

Defining Medical Negligence

Medical Negligence occurs when a healthcare provider fails to deliver the standard of care expected, resulting in harm to the patient. In the context of diabetic foot care, negligence can manifest in several ways:

• Failure to perform regular foot assessments.
• Inadequate treatment or misdiagnosis of foot ulcers and infections.
• Delayed referrals to specialists, such as podiatrists or vascular surgeons.
• Poor patient education on self-care practices.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

The legal framework surrounding Medical Negligence is grounded in the duty of care that healthcare providers owe to their patients. When this duty is breached, and harm ensues, it becomes a matter for legal redress. Patients or their families can seek compensation for damages, which may include medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of earnings.

Ethically, healthcare providers are entrusted with the responsibility to act in the best interest of their patients. Negligence in Diabetic foot care not only violates this ethical obligation but also undermines the trust placed in medical professionals.

Case Studies

Examining case studies of Medical Negligence in Diabetic foot care provides valuable insights into common pitfalls and preventative strategies. Consider the following examples:

Case Study 1: The Missed Diagnosis

A 55-year-old diabetic patient presented with a small foot ulcer. Despite the patient’s complaints of persistent pain, the GP failed to refer the patient to a specialist, opting instead for standard wound care. The ulcer worsened, leading to a severe infection and ultimately, an amputation. The court ruled in favour of the patient, citing the physician’s failure to act promptly and refer to a podiatrist.

Case Study 2: Inadequate Patient Education

In another instance, a Diabetic patient developed a foot infection after not being properly educated on the importance of daily foot inspections and appropriate footwear. The healthcare provider’s oversight in patient instruction resulted in severe complications. Legal action was taken, and the provider was held accountable for not adequately educating the patient on preventative care.

Improving Standards of Care

To mitigate the risks of Medical Negligence in Diabetic foot care, healthcare systems must implement robust protocols:

• Regular training for healthcare providers on the latest diabetic foot care guidelines.
• Comprehensive patient education programs focusing on self-care and early detection of issues.
• Streamlined referral processes to ensure timely specialist intervention.
• Utilisation of multidisciplinary teams to provide holistic care.

Role of Technology

Advancements in technology offer promising solutions for improving Diabetic foot care. Telemedicine enables regular check-ups and immediate consultation with specialists, particularly beneficial for patients in remote areas. Wearable devices that monitor foot temperature and detect early signs of ulcers can alert patients and providers to potential problems before they escalate.

Conclusion

Medical Negligence in Diabetic foot care is a critical issue that demands concerted efforts from healthcare providers, patients, and the broader medical community. By prioritising preventive care, adhering to established guidelines, and leveraging technological innovations, the incidence of negligence can be significantly reduced. Ensuring that Diabetic patients receive the highest standard of foot care is not only a medical necessity but also an ethical imperative, safeguarding their quality of life and preventing avoidable suffering.

If you or a loved one have been affected by Medical Negligence in Diabetic foot care, do not hesitate to contact our Medical Negligence team. We are highly experienced in a wide range of claims and we’re able to assess a case, understand it and then represent you compassionately & effectively. 

Article written by Partner & Medical Negligence Solicitor, Richard Stanford

The post Medical Negligence in Diabetic Foot Care – Understanding the Risks and Responsibilities appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is a rare but serious condition that arises from severe compression of the bundle of nerves at the base of the spinal cord. If not promptly diagnosed and treated, CES can lead to significant and permanent damage, including bowel and bladder dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, and even paralysis. Medical negligence cases related to Cauda Equina Syndrome have garnered increasing attention due to the devastating consequences of delayed or improper treatment.

Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome

The Cauda Equina, Latin for “horse’s tail,” is a bundle of spinal nerves and nerve roots at the lower end of the spinal cord. These nerves supply sensation and muscle control to the lower body, including the legs, feet, and pelvic organs. Cauda Equina Syndrome typically results from a herniated disc, spinal stenosis, trauma, tumours, or infections that exert pressure on these nerves.

Symptoms and Diagnosis

The symptoms of Cauda Equina Syndrome can vary but often include:

• Severe lower back pain
• Sciatica (pain radiating down the legs)
• Numbness or tingling in the “saddle area” (inner thighs, buttocks, genitals)
• Weakness or loss of sensation in the legs
• Bladder and bowel dysfunction (incontinence or retention)
• Sexual dysfunction

Early diagnosis is crucial for preventing permanent damage. Medical professionals should be vigilant in recognizing these symptoms and conducting appropriate diagnostic tests, such as MRI scans, to confirm Cauda Equina Syndrome. Unfortunately, delays in diagnosis and treatment are not uncommon and can result in severe consequences for patients.

Medical Negligence: Causes and Implications

Medical negligence in the context of Cauda Equina Syndrome can occur due to various factors, including:

• Failure to recognize symptoms promptly
• Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis
• Inadequate or delayed referral for specialist evaluation
• Improper interpretation of diagnostic tests
• Delayed surgical intervention

When medical professionals fail to adhere to the standard of care expected in diagnosing and treating Cauda Equina Syndrome, they may be liable for medical negligence. Patients who suffer harm due to such negligence have the right to seek legal recourse and compensation.

Legal Aspects of Medical Negligence

In England, medical negligence claims are governed by principles of Tort Law. To establish a claim for medical negligence, a patient must prove the following elements:

• Duty of care: The medical professional owed a duty of care to the patient.
• Breach of duty: The medical professional breached this duty by failing to provide the standard of care expected.
• Causation: The breach of duty directly caused harm or injury to the patient.
• Damages: The patient suffered damages as a result of the harm or injury.

Compensation and Patient Rights

Patients who successfully prove medical negligence in Cauda Equina Syndrome cases may be entitled to various forms of compensation, including:

• General damages: Compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity.
• Special damages: Compensation for financial losses, such as medical expenses, loss of earnings, and costs of future care.
• Interim payments: Payments made before the final settlement to cover immediate financial needs.

Preventing Medical Negligence in Cauda Equina Syndrome

Preventing medical negligence in Cauda Equina Syndrome requires a multifaceted approach involving medical education, clinical guidelines, and patient awareness.

Medical Education and Training

Medical professionals must receive adequate training to recognize the signs and symptoms of Cauda Equina Syndrome promptly. Continuous medical education and regular updates on best practices can help ensure that healthcare providers remain vigilant and knowledgeable about this condition.

Clinical Guidelines and Protocols

Healthcare institutions should implement clear clinical guidelines and protocols for the diagnosis and management of Cauda Equina Syndrome. These guidelines should emphasize the importance of early diagnosis, prompt referral to specialists, and timely surgical intervention when necessary.

Patient Awareness and Advocacy

Patients should be informed about the symptoms of Cauda Equina Syndrome and encouraged to seek immediate medical attention if they experience any of the warning signs. Patient advocacy groups can play a crucial role in raising awareness and providing support to individuals affected by this condition.

Conclusion

Cauda Equina syndrome is a medical emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent permanent damage. Negligence in managing this condition can have devastating effects on patients’ lives. By understanding the causes, legal implications, and patient rights associated with Cauda Equina Syndrome, we can work towards improving the standard of care and preventing future instances of medical negligence.

The Clinical Negligence team at Brindley Twist Tafft and James have extensive experience of cases in all areas of medicine, including involving Causa Equina.  If you or a loved one believe you have suffered from such negligence, please contact our expert team for a discussion of the issues. Our team are all legal professionals who are specialists in medical negligence, and you can be sure that the information you share will be treated totally confidentially and with the utmost sensitivity. We are a regional firm of Solicitors, based in Coventry and Warwickshire however we cover the whole of England and Wales.

The post Cauda Equina Syndrome and Medical Negligence appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Each year they prepare an Annual Report and here are some key points taken from the Report;

• There is a very slight increase in claims made against the NHS in the last 12 months, an increase of 2%.

• The number of claims that were resolved in 2023/2024 decreased by 1% to 13382.    Of those, 52% resulted in the payment of damages.    

• 81% of clinical claims were resolved without litigation.    

• 50% of resolved cases were for a value of £25,000.00 or below.   

• 66% of cases taken to trial resulted in a successful outcome for the Defendant.

• The top 4 categories of claims are:-

• Emergency Medicine
• Obstetrics
• Orthopaedic Surgery
• General Surgery

• Damages payments for resolving clinical negligence cases in 2023/2024 rose by almost 6% to £2.1 billion.

The post NHS Resolution Annual Report 2023/2024 appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

The case relates to failings during a Deep Brain Stimulation surgery at University Hospitals Birmingham

You can read the full BBC article here: Deep brain stimulation service failings at Birmingham NHS trust for more than decade – BBC News

If you, or someone close to you have suffered as a result of a similar circumstance, please contact us.

Our Medical Negligence solicitors are highly experienced in a wide range of claims, including surgical and GP negligence across the UK

The post Tom Barnes interviewed for BBC appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.