According to the BBC, Mr Cecil Barnes was admitted to hospital in July 2008 to undergo surgery on his bladder. However, he collapsed on his return to the ward and equipment used to resuscitate him was either faulty or used incorrectly and he later died.
Following his collapse, the first machine that staff used to try and clear his airway and resuscitate him was faulty. A different machine was brought in but the staff were unfamiliar with the equipment and it was not properly switched on. A third machine was then tried, but again this was not switched on because staff did not regularly use it and did not know how to operate it.
An internal investigation was carried out following the death and 17 recommendations to improve patient safety were made. These include better procedures for checking functionality of equipment, improved labelling of equipment and better staff training.
It appears that the hospital fell way below the standards of care that they would be expected to provide to Mr Barnes. It is understandable that a single machine may prove to have a fault with it, these things happen, and that is why back-up machines were available. However, you would expect staff to be able to operate an alternative machine and certainly, where there are two alternative machines to a faulty, it seems preposterous that staff would not be appropriately trained on how to use either piece of the equipment at their disposal. What is the point of spending money on equipment that could save lives and then not having anybody capable of operating it when it is required?
Mr Barnes’ family intend to bring an action against the hospital following Mr Barnes’ death and it is clear to see why they feel they have a claim.