Tea death woman had 'horrendous' sore, inquest told

Daily Echo: Tea death woman had 'horrendous' sore, inquest told Tea death woman had 'horrendous' sore, inquest told

The daughter of a 73-year-old woman who died after she was scalded by a spilled cup of tea has told an inquest of the horror of finding her mother with a "gangrenous" sore four days after the accident.

Margaret Young, a retired nurse, was a resident at the Beechcroft Manor Nursing Home in Gosport, when the cup of tea brought to her by a staff aid was accidentally spilled on to her while she was lying in bed on June 13 last year.

The inquest at Portsmouth heard that her husband, Peter Young, 80, was informed by the staff aid of the accident and had seen that the wound had been dressed by nurses.

The hearing was told that Mrs Young was in the final stages of life and had originally been admitted to the nursing home in June 2011 after suffering a fall.

But when the couple's daughter, Janet Young, visited on June 17 she discovered that the wound was in a "horrendous" state and after a doctor examined her mother, she was taken to the Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth where she died on June 20.

Ms Young described her mother as a "tea-aholic" who often asked for more cups of tea which she normally had to drink through a straw.

Describing how she found her mother, Ms Young said: "Mum was moaning and groaning like nothing on Earth.

"I pulled her hand away as I was going to kiss her, her hand and gown were stuck to the side in this big green-black mess.

"I was horrified. I went downstairs to ask what was going on, I just asked why it didn't have a dress on.

"I was told I had to accept it was part of her dying which I was upset about. It was just horrendous."

She added that at the hospital: "The smell was horrendous, the doctors were quite shocked by the stench and the wound sore and the gangrene or whatever you call it.

"I was told there was no option of operating because she wouldn't make it.

"She was put on a drip and antibiotics and tended to very caringly, they were brilliant at the hospital."

She added: "I want to know what happened, why she had to go like that, it's a good home that's why we picked it, I just want to know why."

Mr Young, a retired engineer, told the hearing that the staff aid had told him that a cup of tea which had been left on a bedside table had been spilled on to his wife.

He said: "I do not think it was done on purpose, it was an accident, what happened afterwards is what I criticise."

He added: "I went to the matron, she said 'Do not worry about it, very simple, nothing to worry about, we've made a report about it' and I believed her.

"They tended to pass it off as really a non-event. They were playing it down."

Lincoln Brookes, representing Beechcroft Manor, told the inquest that Mrs Young had been seen by a doctor on the day of the accident and again on three of the four subsequent days.

He said that although all the staff were not aware of the tea spillage, the doctor who examined her provided appropriate treatment.

He said: "They started treating the red patch as an infection. They called a doctor, she couldn't tell if it was a scald or an infection but the advice she gave was for both conditions, if it was a sore or infection."

Addressing Ms Young, Mr Brookes added: "A lot was being done, your mum was receiving the best treatment and her last days were as comfortable as possible."

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:19pm Tue 20 Aug 13

justanotherview says...

I have some questions which are not covered by this "gossipy" piece.

What is a staff "aid" ? Is it one of those 16-year-old unqualified, untrained care home assistants on minimum wage ?

How come the tea was so hot ? Why would you bring a cup of tea that was so hot to a patient ?

Now. Onto the CQC report for January, 2013. Care and welfare provision for the service users was found to be unsatisfactory. If you read the report, it seems that the kind of things that were wrong could reasonably covered by the words "inefficient" and "sloppy" - things that could easily be put right. And indeed they were. The April 2013 report states that everything was fine. My feeling is that the kind of people who put on a poor show for an inspection, who then put things right for a second review, are unreliable. It's not as though the problems were as a result of a lack of funds, resources, etc. They were as a result of incompetent performance, which the first report makes clear.

For a scalding injury to be so badly managed just beggars belief. Over the four days the lady would have received 12 meals, 30-40 cups of tea, washed at least 8 times, and taken to the toilet at least 30 times. With all that happening, not one person noticed anything ? And this so-called doctor - how could they have got it all so wrong ?

Personally, if it was my mother, I would be talking to the police, the CQC, and my solicitor right now.
I have some questions which are not covered by this "gossipy" piece. What is a staff "aid" ? Is it one of those 16-year-old unqualified, untrained care home assistants on minimum wage ? How come the tea was so hot ? Why would you bring a cup of tea that was so hot to a patient ? Now. Onto the CQC report for January, 2013. Care and welfare provision for the service users was found to be unsatisfactory. If you read the report, it seems that the kind of things that were wrong could reasonably covered by the words "inefficient" and "sloppy" - things that could easily be put right. And indeed they were. The April 2013 report states that everything was fine. My feeling is that the kind of people who put on a poor show for an inspection, who then put things right for a second review, are unreliable. It's not as though the problems were as a result of a lack of funds, resources, etc. They were as a result of incompetent performance, which the first report makes clear. For a scalding injury to be so badly managed just beggars belief. Over the four days the lady would have received 12 meals, 30-40 cups of tea, washed at least 8 times, and taken to the toilet at least 30 times. With all that happening, not one person noticed anything ? And this so-called doctor - how could they have got it all so wrong ? Personally, if it was my mother, I would be talking to the police, the CQC, and my solicitor right now. justanotherview

3:28pm Tue 20 Aug 13

haycha says...

justanotherview wrote:
I have some questions which are not covered by this "gossipy" piece. What is a staff "aid" ? Is it one of those 16-year-old unqualified, untrained care home assistants on minimum wage ? How come the tea was so hot ? Why would you bring a cup of tea that was so hot to a patient ? Now. Onto the CQC report for January, 2013. Care and welfare provision for the service users was found to be unsatisfactory. If you read the report, it seems that the kind of things that were wrong could reasonably covered by the words "inefficient" and "sloppy" - things that could easily be put right. And indeed they were. The April 2013 report states that everything was fine. My feeling is that the kind of people who put on a poor show for an inspection, who then put things right for a second review, are unreliable. It's not as though the problems were as a result of a lack of funds, resources, etc. They were as a result of incompetent performance, which the first report makes clear. For a scalding injury to be so badly managed just beggars belief. Over the four days the lady would have received 12 meals, 30-40 cups of tea, washed at least 8 times, and taken to the toilet at least 30 times. With all that happening, not one person noticed anything ? And this so-called doctor - how could they have got it all so wrong ? Personally, if it was my mother, I would be talking to the police, the CQC, and my solicitor right now.
totally agree with with you. it is absolutely disgusting the treatment this poor lady received.
[quote][p][bold]justanotherview[/bold] wrote: I have some questions which are not covered by this "gossipy" piece. What is a staff "aid" ? Is it one of those 16-year-old unqualified, untrained care home assistants on minimum wage ? How come the tea was so hot ? Why would you bring a cup of tea that was so hot to a patient ? Now. Onto the CQC report for January, 2013. Care and welfare provision for the service users was found to be unsatisfactory. If you read the report, it seems that the kind of things that were wrong could reasonably covered by the words "inefficient" and "sloppy" - things that could easily be put right. And indeed they were. The April 2013 report states that everything was fine. My feeling is that the kind of people who put on a poor show for an inspection, who then put things right for a second review, are unreliable. It's not as though the problems were as a result of a lack of funds, resources, etc. They were as a result of incompetent performance, which the first report makes clear. For a scalding injury to be so badly managed just beggars belief. Over the four days the lady would have received 12 meals, 30-40 cups of tea, washed at least 8 times, and taken to the toilet at least 30 times. With all that happening, not one person noticed anything ? And this so-called doctor - how could they have got it all so wrong ? Personally, if it was my mother, I would be talking to the police, the CQC, and my solicitor right now.[/p][/quote]totally agree with with you. it is absolutely disgusting the treatment this poor lady received. haycha

3:41pm Tue 20 Aug 13

Tenderhearts wife says...

haycha wrote:
justanotherview wrote:
I have some questions which are not covered by this "gossipy" piece. What is a staff "aid" ? Is it one of those 16-year-old unqualified, untrained care home assistants on minimum wage ? How come the tea was so hot ? Why would you bring a cup of tea that was so hot to a patient ? Now. Onto the CQC report for January, 2013. Care and welfare provision for the service users was found to be unsatisfactory. If you read the report, it seems that the kind of things that were wrong could reasonably covered by the words "inefficient" and "sloppy" - things that could easily be put right. And indeed they were. The April 2013 report states that everything was fine. My feeling is that the kind of people who put on a poor show for an inspection, who then put things right for a second review, are unreliable. It's not as though the problems were as a result of a lack of funds, resources, etc. They were as a result of incompetent performance, which the first report makes clear. For a scalding injury to be so badly managed just beggars belief. Over the four days the lady would have received 12 meals, 30-40 cups of tea, washed at least 8 times, and taken to the toilet at least 30 times. With all that happening, not one person noticed anything ? And this so-called doctor - how could they have got it all so wrong ? Personally, if it was my mother, I would be talking to the police, the CQC, and my solicitor right now.
totally agree with with you. it is absolutely disgusting the treatment this poor lady received.
I also agree there is no way that the sore would have got into the state described in just a matter of hours, that was caused by neglect.
my sympathies go out to the Husband and daughter and I hope that the truth comes out and lessons are learnt to prevent this happening to another vulnerable person.
[quote][p][bold]haycha[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justanotherview[/bold] wrote: I have some questions which are not covered by this "gossipy" piece. What is a staff "aid" ? Is it one of those 16-year-old unqualified, untrained care home assistants on minimum wage ? How come the tea was so hot ? Why would you bring a cup of tea that was so hot to a patient ? Now. Onto the CQC report for January, 2013. Care and welfare provision for the service users was found to be unsatisfactory. If you read the report, it seems that the kind of things that were wrong could reasonably covered by the words "inefficient" and "sloppy" - things that could easily be put right. And indeed they were. The April 2013 report states that everything was fine. My feeling is that the kind of people who put on a poor show for an inspection, who then put things right for a second review, are unreliable. It's not as though the problems were as a result of a lack of funds, resources, etc. They were as a result of incompetent performance, which the first report makes clear. For a scalding injury to be so badly managed just beggars belief. Over the four days the lady would have received 12 meals, 30-40 cups of tea, washed at least 8 times, and taken to the toilet at least 30 times. With all that happening, not one person noticed anything ? And this so-called doctor - how could they have got it all so wrong ? Personally, if it was my mother, I would be talking to the police, the CQC, and my solicitor right now.[/p][/quote]totally agree with with you. it is absolutely disgusting the treatment this poor lady received.[/p][/quote]I also agree there is no way that the sore would have got into the state described in just a matter of hours, that was caused by neglect. my sympathies go out to the Husband and daughter and I hope that the truth comes out and lessons are learnt to prevent this happening to another vulnerable person. Tenderhearts wife

5:17pm Tue 20 Aug 13

cantthinkofone says...

"Lincoln Brookes, representing Beechcroft Manor, told the inquest that Mrs Young had been seen by a doctor on the day of the accident and again on three of the four subsequent days."

If this is true, and the home followed the advice given, then I'd be talking to the GMC rather than the CQC...
"Lincoln Brookes, representing Beechcroft Manor, told the inquest that Mrs Young had been seen by a doctor on the day of the accident and again on three of the four subsequent days." If this is true, and the home followed the advice given, then I'd be talking to the GMC rather than the CQC... cantthinkofone

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree