Hospital fine cut over baby death

A technician's mistake at Guy's Hospital led to the death

A London hospital has won a £60,000 cut in a fine imposed on it over the death of a premature girl accidentally given an overdose of glucose.

Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust was fined £75,000 after Jada Pilkington Asanye died when she was given glucose feed supplied by Guy's Hospital.

The Court of Appeal said the fine was "excessive" as the hospital argued the 2006 death was not management's fault.

Judges said penalising the hospital would have an impact on its operation.

Jada and her twin brother were born at 24 weeks at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital on 24 April 2006, but her brother died shortly after.

Jada, who was in an intensive care unit there, was given a feed from a bag supplied by Guy's which had five times too much glucose.

The court ought not to punish such a body by the imposition of a financial penalty which would materially impact on its ability to discharge its public duty Lord Justice Toulson

In May, Southwark Crown Court heard how an investigation at Guy's discovered a technician had "pressed the wrong button" when preparing a colourless nutritional mix for Jada, comprising glucose, water and protein.

The girl, who was in a "poor condition", died the next day.

The trust admitted one count of supplying a medicinal product not of a nature or quality specified in a prescription.

It argued the death resulted from the acts of two properly trained employees and not a failure or negligence of the management.

Ruling on the fine, Lord Justice Toulson said: "It was a massive glucose overdose.

"The coroner at the inquest found that a number of factors contributed to her death, one of which was hyperglycaemia caused by the glucose overdose."

The trust argued that a £75,000 fine would harm its work as it was equivalent to the average costs for a year for two-and-a-half members of staff.

Lord Justice Toulson said judges accepted that when a failing occurs due to "an act or default" of a trained employee "the court ought not to punish such a body by the imposition of a financial penalty which would materially impact on its ability to discharge its public duty".

"The reason is that the public interest would not be served by so doing."