We acted for the parents of a young man against a mental health facility who were found liable for failure to admit a suicidal patient – their son.
The deceased had been under the care of psychiatrists for mental health issues and substance abuse and was recommended by one of his treating team to a psychiatrist who managed the care of patients at the private hospital. The private hospital did not accept patients who required involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)(“MHA”). .
After an attempt at suicide by way of deliberate self-poisoning of prescription drugs, the deceased was transferred from the private facility to the public hospital and scheduled under the MHA. He remained at the public hospital for just four days before being transferred back to the private hospital where he was treated as an outpatient. He remained at the private facility from that time until his death 10 weeks later. There was a brief period of involuntary treatment at the public hospital during this period.
The medical records maintained by the private hospital noted that the deceased thought about suicide 60% of the time. He expressed to the nursing staff his desire to “kill himself” and discussed the same with other patients at the facility.
Four days before his death and while still a patient at the private facility, our clients received telephone calls from the deceased indicating that he intended to take his life. This information was conveyed to nursing staff at the private hospital.
The deceased was found facedown in bushland at the rear of the hospital.
An inquest was held into the death – the Coroner finding that the death was preventable and identified two fundamental failings on the part of the hospital. The first was the ready availability of the drugs consumed leading to his death. The second was the failure of the staff on duty at the hospital to properly appreciate and respond to the deceased’s escalating suicidal ideation and intent.
Our clients then commenced negligence proceedings against the private hospital relying upon the evidence of an independent psychiatrist  – whose opinion was that the hospital’s staff displayed indifference towards the deceased’s mental and physical anguish – and an independent psychiatric nurse. The hospital relied on a psychiatrist – regularly engaged in cases such as this one – whose view was that the death was unpreventable even had the nursing staff intervened. In support of this proposition, the defence psychiatrist asserted – and often asserts – that there is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, that assessing a patient’s mental state, including suicidal ideation, reduces suicide rates.
Our clients presented evidence in the negligence proceedings of major depressive illness caused by the death of their son which was largely uncontested by the defence psychiatric evidence.
The claim was settled successfully.
If you or someone you care about needs support contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.
If you or a loved one has experienced medical negligence, contact our caring expert lawyers on 02 4929 3995
The post Liability for failure to admit suicidal patient | Our client’s story appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

Distinguished legal academic, writer, film maker and Indigenous rights advocate Professor Larissa Behrendt AO will present the third annual Margaret Henry Memorial Lecture online on November 5. The lecture is titled Aboriginal Lives Matter: Stopping the Next Stolen Generation and Professor Behrendt will focus on the “alarming” rate of child removal from Indigenous families and strategies to address this.
Says Behrendt: “The Black Lives Matter movement has focused attention on incarceration rates and deaths in custody, but just as important is keeping Aboriginal children with their families. The rate of Indigenous child removal has almost doubled since the Apology in 2008. This trend and the implications are alarming. The best strategy for addressing the issue is one of self-determination and placing the voices of Indigenous people at the centre rather than the margins.”
Professor Behrendt is a Eualayai/Gamillaroi woman and the director of Research and Academic Programs at the Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research at UTS. She is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and a founding member of the Australian Academy of Law.
She is also an award-winning author and has published numerous textbooks on Indigenous legal issues. In 2018 she won Australian Directors Guild Award for Best Direction of a Documentary Film for After the Apology. Her most recent documentary, Maralinga Tjarutja, was broadcast on the ABC in 2020. Professor Behrendt was awarded the 2009 NAIDOC Person of the Year award and 2011 NSW Australian of the Year. She hosts Speaking Out on ABC Radio.
The late Margaret Henry worked tirelessly mentoring indigenous students and had an active involvement in the establishment of indigenous studies at the University of Newcastle
Both Greens MP David Shoebridge and Professor John Maynard will provide introductory and preliminary comment at the lecture. David Shoebridge MLC has advocated in the NSW Parliament against the continuation of a Stolen Generations sentiment. University of Newcastle academic John Maynard is the former Director of the Wollotuka Institute.
The inaugural Margaret Henry Memorial Lecture was presented in 2018 by Renew Newcastle founder Marcus Westbury and was organised by family and friends of Margaret Henry who died in 2015. The former University of Newcastle academic and Newcastle City Council deputy mayor was well-known for leading community campaigns on a range of issues including heritage conservation, education, environmental protection, education and the preservation of the heavy rail line and Laman Street figs. In 2016, Henry was posthumously made a Freeman of the City, Newcastle’s highest civic honour.
 
The free lecture will be held from 7pm on November 5. Register at: https://www.trybooking.com/events/landing?eid=671527&
For more details about the lecture and to arrange an interview with Larissa Behrendt please contact Rosemarie Milsom on 0403 041 588.
The post Academic and Indigenous rights activist Larissa Behrendt to present this year’s online Margaret Henry Memorial Lecture appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

A number of cases before the courts emanating from treatment in the Hunter region have drawn attention to the quality of care in our mental health facilities.
Over the course of the last few months, we have watched the consequences of the tragic death of 18 year old Ahlia Rafter being played out in the public domain both in an inquest into her death followed by an inquiry into the conduct of the nurses who cared for her at Calvary Mater Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (‘PICU’).
It’s instructive to review how the case involving Ahlia Raftery and several others deal with the role of health care workers in psychiatric facilities.
The focus has generally been upon the avoidability of a death – patient or 3rd party – and, in that context, the standard of care provided by the psychiatric facility.
Ahlia Raftery was transferred between four mental health facilities in the six days before she took her own life.
Both in the inquest and then in the disciplinary hearing before the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, the focus was on the care provided by four nurses who had been responsible for the care of Ahlia Raftery.
One of the results of the inquest into Ms Raftery’s death was a recommendation for one-to-one nurse to patient ratios in PICU.
The complaint brought by the HCCC alleged professional misconduct on the part of the nurses by having failed to undertake adequate observations of Ms Raftery in the hours before her death.
Two of the four nurses had their registration suspended for 12 months and the other two were reprimanded.
Much has been made since the HCCC findings of the poor work environment at the mental health ward and the “widespread and entrenched poor practices.” The nurses at the centre of the case have claimed systemic issues – inadequate staffing levels largely – played a major role in the outcome.
Some commentators argue that it is the psychiatric units themselves which cause the risk of suicide to increase.
In an article titled “Psychiatric hospitalisation and the risk of suicide” published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2018, Sydney psychiatrist Professor Matthew Large debates this issue with a British psychiatrist Professor Nav Kapur.
Professor Large asserts that the high rates of suicide in patients who have been admitted to a psychiatric facility is directly linked to their experience within the facility itself. He argues that the experience of being detained in a psychiatric hospital is so traumatic, that it is the hospital experience itself which causes the increased propensity to suicide either in hospital or shortly after discharge.
Professor Large writes that:
“[H]ospital treatment can be perceived as humiliating, stigmatising, coercive and traumatic.  Hospitalisation often results in a loss of social support and social role, and violent victimisation is frighteningly common. In-patients who are already vulnerable are likely to be particularly susceptible to these factors, which are known to be associated with suicide.”
Professor Kapur takes an opposite view and argues that just because there is a high correlation between detention in a psychiatric hospital and suicide upon release does not mean that it is possible to argue that the psychiatric hospital was the causative factor in the suicide as a correlation is not necessarily causative.
Further, the fact that a person is admitted to a psychiatric facility in the first place is because they have been assessed according to the provisions in the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) as needing to be protected from serious harm which the person might to do to himself or herself or other people. Therefore, it is arguable that psychiatric patients as a group have a higher propensity to suicide than the general population despite their experience in a psychiatric facility.
While Professor Large, acknowledges the relationship between psychiatric hospitalisation and the fact that the person was there in the first place because of their suicidal thoughts, he argues that this does not explain why there should be such a difference in the suicide rates of different psychiatric hospitals.
Professor Large argues that the variance in the reported studies on the number of suicides of psychiatric patients shows that it is the psychiatric facilities themselves which are responsible for this large variation.
It is possible to draw a conclusion based on Professor Large’s reasoning that poor quality care and unsafe psychiatric hospitals actually exacerbate the suicidal tendencies of an already suicidal person rather than reduce them.
Professor Kapur vehemently disagrees with Professor Large on most of his arguments and considers that psychiatric hospitals prevent rather than cause self-harm and suicide, but he concedes that variations in the quality of some hospitals might mean that patients receive ‘less-than –ideal care.’
Many would not agree with Professor Large’s proposition that an admission to a psychiatric hospital exacerbates the suicide risk of a person upon discharge.  There would, however, be likely to be general consensus that a poorly run and under-funded psychiatric facility, which provides, as even Professor Kapur concedes, ‘less-than –ideal care’ can play a role in exacerbating the risk of suicide of the patients it is charged to help.
Certainly where there has been a spike in the number of patients and ex-patients of a particular psychiatric facility turning to suicide, it should alert the authorities, that the care, that the particular facility is providing, requires urgent review.
If you or someone you care about needs support contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14
If you or a loved one has experienced an adverse outcome in relation to care from a psychiatric facility contact of our caring, health law team members, who are experienced in mental health legal cases and complaints, today to discuss your options for justice or compensation.
The post Do mental health facilities increase the risk of suicide? appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

One of our negligence claims against a public mental health facility involved an avoidable – and unsuccessful – attempt at suicide leading to a brain injury.
Our client – a young woman – had been made the subject of an involuntary order and hospitalised in the “PICU” (or Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit) of a large mental health facility.  Psychiatric Intensive Care Units are specialist wards within mental health units that provide inpatient mental health care, assessment and comprehensive treatment to  those individuals who are experiencing the most acutely disturbed phase of a serious mental disorder.
Despite our client’s treating team having determined that close 15-minute observations were appropriate for her safety at the facility, she was allowed to take an unsupervised walk where she attempted suicide by means of hanging.  Her attempt at suicide was unsuccessful but she was left with catastrophic injuries including traumatic brain injury. Negligence proceedings were commenced against the hospital for breaching its duty of care to our client and failing to keep her safe whilst under their care.
Prior to the incident, our client had been living independently in the community and had a responsible job of significant longevity. The attempt at suicide leading to brain injury resulted in her being no longer able to work, after sustaining her injury, and requiring gratuitous care in relation to her activities of daily living.
We successfully settled our client’s claim for an amount which compensated her for her  pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of income and assistance.
If you or someone you care about needs support contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.
If you or someone you love has experienced medical negligence contact one of our expert lawyers today on 02 4929 3995.
The post Attempt at suicide lead to brain injury | Our client’s story appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

As the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety wraps up its hearings today, leading aged care lawyer and advocate on aged care reform, Catherine Henry, says the comprehensive, integrated suite of recommendations submitted by counsel assisting, Peter Rozen SC and Peter Gray QC, go a long way to addressing the crisis in aged care.
Ms Henry, who is also the Australian Lawyers Alliance national spokesperson on aged care, is concerned about the federal government’s lack of will and sense of urgency to implement real reform, which means more older Australians will needlessly suffer or die.
During the final two days of hearings held by the Commission on October 22 and 23, Counsel Assisting submitted a lengthy list of 123 recommendations.
Ms Henry says she’s pleased to see that the recommendations addressed fundamental root cause problems for the sector such as legislation, governance, regulation, public availability of aged care provider performance against benchmark quality indicators as well as minimum staffing, improved pay for aged care workers, and workforce training.
These are the issues Ms Henry has been consistently advocating for and were central to her statement to the Royal Commission during its public workshop in Newcastle in November 2019.
“The first recommendation is for a new Aged Care Act to replace the one that was written by the sector for the sector back in 1997,” Ms Henry said.
“When the government introduced the Act it was clear its motive was about containing costs of care as opposed to, needs based, quality care,” she said.
“Despite more than 20 enquiries into aged care in the 20 plus years since the Act was introduced, the legislation has nothing to say about regulation.
“Experts and advocates, backed by the latest research released by the Royal Commission on Wednesday (October 21), shows the current regulator is an ineffective, toothless tiger.
“The proposal to have a new Australian Aged Care Commission – independent of Ministerial influence – as well as an independent Inspector General responsible for implementing reforms and monitoring the performance of the new Aged Care Commission provides proper accountability and effectiveness on behalf of aged care recipients, their families, and the Australian public.”
The current Australian Quality and Safety Commission is an agency of the Commonwealth Health Department.
Research conducted by the National Ageing Research Institute (NARI) for the Royal Commission found only 25 per cent of Australians receiving aged care at home or in a facility believed their needs were being met. Fewer than 1 per cent of concerns by older Australians about substandard aged care were officially raised with the current watchdog, the Aged Care Safety and Quality Commission, because people thought there was no point in doing so.  The survey also reinforced that the main issues for concern amongst residents and their families were staffing, high rates of staff turnover, and inadequate training.
Ms Henry’s firm, based in regional NSW , handles many cases for residents and families who experience poor care or negligence in aged care facilities as well as support for those entering into accommodation contracts with aged care providers.  She said that the recommendations, including regulation, quality targets and minimum staffing, are very important to address the experience of aged care residents in regional and remote Australia.
“Given the Government’s poor response to aged care in the recent budget and to countless other reports I am concerned about how long it will take for the Government to act on the Royal Commission’s findings and reports.
“Counsel assisting has correctly recommended that some of the initiatives it has put forward be implemented even before the Royal Commission’s final report is released (due February 2021).
“The Government appears to be content to wait to act until after the Commission’s report is release in February 2021. Meanwhile, older Australians are suffering and at risk in aged care facilities and those caring for them face an uphill battle to provide appropriate care.”
The post Aged Care Royal Commission findings – hearing ends today appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

Firstly, well done!  It can often be a difficult and drawn out process to agree on parenting arrangements for children.
While you don’t have to, we recommend that the next step is to have the agreement documented so both parties are clear on what the arrangements are and what is expected.  This can be done in two ways:

Parenting Plan; or
Consent Orders.

A Parenting Plan is a cheap and informal way to document the  arrangements.  A Parenting Plan is a written agreement which sets out things such as who the child lives with, the time the child spends with the other parent and parental responsibility.  Parenting Plans are flexible and can be varied as required.  The Parenting Plan is signed and dated by both parents.  You do not need legal representation and you do not need to go to court.
One important limitation is that a Parenting Plan is not enforceable by a court.  Therefore, if one party does not comply with the Parenting Plan (such as, not returning the children on a certain day), you cannot commence court proceedings for breach of the agreement.
In our opinion, the best way to document your agreement is by Consent Orders which are filed with the Family Court.  Like a Parenting Plan, the Consent Orders set out things such as who the child lives with, the time the child spends with the other parent and parental responsibility.  The Consent Orders are signed and dated by both parents (and lawyers, if applicable) and are filed with the Court.  No one will need to attend the Court for the making of the Orders.
There are two important differences between Consent Orders and a Parenting Plan.  Firstly, once made, Consent Orders are binding on both parties.  This means that any breach of the Orders may result in contravention proceedings before the Court.  Secondly, Consent Orders are final.  They will be in place until the children reach 18 years and will only be changed where there is a significant change in circumstances, or by agreement.
There are important considerations regarding both documents and we encourage you to get legal advice prior to signing any document setting out children’s arrangements.
The post My ex and I have agreed on parenting arrangements…what happens next? appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

The 2020 federal budget has failed to address the systemic problems in aged care that COVID-19 has tragically exposed, says the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA).
“We have a chronically underfunded and poorly regulated aged care sector,” said ALA spokesperson, lawyer and aged care advocate, Ms Catherine Henry. “This sector needed funding in last night’s budget but it also needed a commitment to greater regulation to control the quality and safety of residential aged care.
“The budget was a missed opportunity for the government to get on the front foot, pre-empt the Royal Commission and start making critical investment in the sector now. Many of the changes needed are well understood. Before this Royal Commission, there have been 20 inquiries in as many years all pointing to the same issues.
“The aged care sector needs immediate government action. An extra 23,000 home care places are just not sufficient to address the very serious structural issues facing older Australians and their families.
“We know that relying on the private sector to ensure the quality and safety of aged care facilities has not worked. The sector needs investment that does not boost the profits of aged care providers but ensures staff ratios, greater transparency and increased regulation.
“Only last week the Royal Commission handed down a scathing report asserting the ineffectiveness of the response of governments and the aged care sectors to the pandemic. But the contents of the report, and indeed COVID-19’s tragic impact on people living in aged care and their families, is hardly surprising – given the systemic problems we know exist in the sector.
“As the Commission says, we must learn quickly from recent tragic deaths and suffering to prevent unnecessary deaths in the future. The federal budget was the opportunity for the Government to begin to take urgent action but it has disappointingly failed to do so.”
The post Budget 2020 failed to address the urgent and life-threatening issues in aged care appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

The number of homeless older women in Australia is increasing, according to the annual State of the Family report published by Anglicare Australia. This little-recognised phenomenon is linked to various social factors. The report urged immediate action to better support these women, many of whom are in an insecure housing situation for the first time in their lives.
Jeremy McAuliffe, general manager at Benetas, a Victorian-based not for profit aged care provider commented that most people would think of youth homelessness, or older men living on the street, but his organisation is seeing more and more the problem of homeless women. He added that we have got to broaden our understanding of this problem.
The reasons an older woman might find herself at risk of losing her home are complex, but many have played the traditional role of mother or carer, have not had long periods of employment, and this has an impact on superannuation and savings. A major exacerbating issue for homeless older women is the fact that often they never have had to face anything like this before: “They may never have had to seek support from the welfare and support services themselves. That lack of knowledge of support further complicates the issue.” McAuliffe encouraged the government to look at current ageing policy with a wider perspective.
Read more here.
The post Homeless Older Women appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

More Australians then ever are turning to bariatric surgery to shed unwanted weight. Australia’s battle with the bulge is becoming a national health crisis. Indeed, burgeoning waistlines are on the rise, a recent CSIRO study found that 40% of Australians think they have gained weight during COVID.
For almost two-thirds of Australians who are now overweight or obese, of those whose attempts at weight lose remain futile, bariatric surgery (weight loss surgery) could be the genie in the bottle solution – and it’s understandably proving more popular than ever.
As a matter of fact, the latest data from AIHW shows an increase of 144% in weight loss surgery uptake in just over a decade.
To be eligible for bariatric surgery, a BMI of 40 and above may be considered, (or 35 in some circumstances), and with 3 in 5 Australian women overweight or obese, there are more candidates than ever.
So perhaps it’s unsurprising that according to the Australian Bariatric Surgery Registry’s report almost 80% of those going under the knife are female, most aged 35-44.
Types of weight loss surgery procedures
In Australia, the most common types of bariatric surgery are gastric sleeve, lap band surgery (called gastric banding), and gastric bypass.
Gastric sleeve (Sleeve gastrectomy)
The surgeon makes your stomach smaller by permanently removing part of it. As a result, you won’t be able to eat as much food as before. This is the most common surgery and accounts for about of all hospital weight loss surgery procedures. Check your weight loss surgeon’s qualifications and experience
Gastric banding (lap band)
The surgeon uses a silicon band to tie off a section of your stomach and make it smaller. This has a similar effect on your appetite as the gastric sleeve, but you won’t experience as dramatic of an effect on your appetite.
Gastric bypass
The surgeon divides the stomach into two sections and reconnects the small intestine to the stomach’s smaller, upper pouch. You eat less, but you also absorb fewer calories from the food you do eat since your small intestine is involved. You may have to supplement with vitamins and minerals to make up for the lack of absorption.
 
The problem with the rising trend in weight loss surgery, is the misapprehension that it is not a serious medical operation. Bariatric surgery is not a ‘lunchtime procedure,’ like the many other cosmetic options available to Australian women such as Botox, chemical peels and facials in the never-ending quest to maintain and retain our appearance.
Weight loss surgery is a serious operation. It involves making changes to the digestive system either by making your stomach smaller or changing your small intestine, so that you eat less food. Due to the complex nature of the surgery, when mismanaged, devastating consequences may arise, and they can happen to anybody.
Heidi Montag of US reality tv “The Hills” fame was made famous ten years ago when she underwent “10 procedures in one day.” Almost a decade on and she has spoken candidly about the impacts of plastic surgery. “Everyone always shows you the before and after pics. They don’t show you how devastating recovery is. I don’t regret a lot of my enhancement, but plastic surgery isn’t something that should be glorified. Take it seriously.”
From the many cases Catherine Henry Lawyers’ expert health law team have handled or reviewed, we advise women to choose their surgeon carefully. Check your surgeon’s qualifications as well as the reputation of the relevant hospital. You can check your surgeon’s credentials and history of complaints at www.ahpra.gov.au.
We have seen the devastating impacts when surgeries are mismanaged, and especially the harm they have on the physical and mental health of our clients. Read our client stories here. Our expert health law team can help you if you have experienced complications, injury or trauma from bariatric surgery. Contact our award-winning health law team today 02 4929 3995.
 
 
 
 
The post Chewing the fat on bariatric surgery appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

We acted for a 24-year-old woman from regional NSW who sustained very severe physical and psychological injuries during the traumatic birth of her second child. In fact, our client’s injuries were so severe that the case had to be heard in the Supreme Court where damages are unlimited.
Our client was admitted to the regional hospital at 39 weeks gestation in active labour. The doctor who assessed her formed the view the baby was in the cephalic or ”head first” position. The doctor ruptured her membranes and Syntocin infusion commenced to augment labour. Our client was not reviewed for 4 hours. A student midwife observed at the end of this four-hour period that our client was moving to second stage labour. A vaginal examination revealed her to be 9 cms dilated and the baby in a frank breech position (bottom not headfirst)!
A Resident Medical Officer was notified and the Syntocin infusion stopped. A decision was made to perform an emergency caesarean section. A few minutes later, our client was re-examined and found to be fully dilated (10cms). The attending doctor – without informing our client – made the decision there was not enough time to perform a caesarean section.
Our client was rushed to theatre and forced into the extended lithotomy position (hyper flexing the legs on top of the woman’s abdomen) – resulting in immediate and substantial pain and discomfort in her right hip and leg. Local anaesthesia was administered. An episiotomy was performed causing what our client described as horrific pain. The attending doctor yelled several times at our client to ‘shut up and stop screaming.’ Our client suffered multiple and significant perineal tears.
After the birth, our client had to undergo several procedures to repair the birth injuries she had sustained during delivery of the baby including suturing of the vaginal wall, bringing the anal sphincter together with further suturing, suturing the perineal membrane and suturing the subcutaneous layer to the skin.
Our client was diagnosed with PTSD caused by the traumatic birthing experience, and later found to have suffered major injuries to her right hip: labral tear and trochanteric bursitis.
Our client received substantial compensation for her injuries.
If you or a loved one has experienced injuries during traumatic birth, our caring, expert female lawyers can help advocate for you and seek justice. Please talk to us about the options available to you.
 
The post Injuries from Vaginal Birth | Our Client’s Story appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

There are a lot of things to think about when it comes to childbirth, especially the first time. There is much written about “normal childbirth” but what does this mean?
Normal childbirth is a “catch-all” phrase encompassing spontaneous labour at term (38–42 weeks) and head-first vaginal delivery. However, childbirth is not that simple, and every woman’s experience is different.
It is 10 years since the NSW Government launched the Towards Normal Birth campaign the aim of which was:

To increase the vaginal birth rate in NSW and decrease the caesarean section (CS) operation rate;

To develop, implement and evaluate strategies to support women to have a positive experience of pregnancy and birth; and

To ensure that midwives and doctors have the knowledge and skills to support women who choose to give birth:

without technological interventions, unless necessary; 
with non-pharmacological intervention;
in birthing pools; and
using different positions for labour and birth.

The Towards Normal Birth Policy Directive is currently under review by the NSW Ministry of Health who conducted workshops between health professionals, consumers and various stakeholders between February and May 2019 to discuss maternity care in NSW. The outcome of this review will be a “companion” to a Policy Directive published by NSW Health in February 2019 entitled “The First 2000 Days Framework”, which focuses on “the importance of the first 2000 days in a child’s life (from conception to age 5).”
Thinking about the aims of the Towards Normal Birth Policy of 2010 – especially in respect of the “aim to increase the vaginal birth rate in NSW and decrease the caesarean section (CS) operation rate” – according to The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG – a not-for-profit organisation which amongst other things supports research into women’s health) “while caesarean delivery is associated with increased surgical risks during the birthing experience, and increased risks in relation to future conception and births, vaginal delivery may not be appropriate for some women…”.
RANZCOG published a statement in 2017 regarding Caesarean Delivery on Maternal Request (CDMR) the objectives of which were to “provide advice on management where a woman requests elective delivery by caesarean section where there are no identifiable medical or obstetric contraindications to an attempt at vaginal delivery”.
It recognised that “…psychological factors may heavily influence a woman’s choice for a caesarean birth including experiences of previous birth trauma or significant life trauma” and concluded, “…when a woman requests an elective caesarean section in the absence of medical indication, obstetricians acknowledge the legitimacy of the request and explore the reasons underlying it”
We have assisted many women and achieved good outcomes and compensation with all sorts of enquiries regarding their birthing experience.
If you have experienced what you think might be “birth trauma” associated with vaginal or caesarean delivery including the labour process, we might be able to help you.
Linda Crawford, senior solicitor was a midwife before becoming a lawyer and would be very happy to discuss your experience with you.
The post When it comes to birth, what’s ‘normal’ got to do with it? appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

A few years ago we acted for a couple who lost their baby following a prolonged labour at home. The mother decided early in her pregnancy that she wished to give birth at home and engaged the services of a midwife to assist with the delivery. At some point during the labour, the midwife ascertained there were complications and advised the mother to go to hospital— urgently. The mother refused to attend hospital because she was determined her baby would be born at home.
Tragically, her baby died.
We know complications can arise during labour – so is a planned home birth the safest or most sensible option? Thinking more about this, we know complications frequently arise in a hospital setting. All too often we hear stories about deliveries gone wrong, or hospitals failing to provide women and their babies with adequate care.
If hospitals really are the safest place to deliver a baby, why is there an increasing trend for home births in Australia and in developed countries such as the US, UK and in Europe?
When hospitals continue to breach the duty of care owed to mothers and their babies, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that women are exploring alternative options
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) supports hospitals as the safest place for birth in Australia and New Zealand. However, it recognises that there is a small group of women who are accepting of the associated risks and elect to proceed with planned homebirth.
The College believes that “these women should be maximally supported in that choice, but in the knowledge that provision of such support can never completely mitigate the risks.”
Despite some evidence that home births are relatively safe for low-risk mothers, common sense dictates that when an emergency situation arises, urgent care can only be provided in a hospital setting.
Obstetricians, foetal monitoring devices and swift surgical action are readily available. Indeed, the RANZCOG statement advises that a decision to give birth at home “must be taken in the knowledge that there are relatively few resources available for the management of sudden unexpected complications that may affect any pregnancy or birth”. It says women contemplating a planned home birth must have accurate information about these risks.
No matter which argument you tend to agree with, at Catherine Henry Lawyers we’ve helped many clients with medical negligence claims arising from mismanaged labour and deliveries in a hospital setting. So, when hospitals continue to breach the duty of care owed to mothers and their babies, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that women are exploring alternative options.
If you have experienced what you think might be “birth trauma” associated with home births including the labour process, we might be able to help you. Linda Crawford, senior solicitor was a midwife before becoming a lawyer and would be very happy to discuss your experience with you.
The post Home births – why the increasing trend? appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

Weekend media reports of incidents at Dubbo and Taree hospitals show the need for government action on disproportionate funding and outcomes in regional NSW hospitals to deliver a fairer health deal for regional NSW people.
The under-resourcing, lack of doctors and systemic system failures within NSW regional hospitals were again in the media spotlight – including the death of the father of 60 Minutes reporter, Liz Hayes, over the weekend.
Regional NSW based health lawyer and advocate for healthcare reform, Catherine Henry, says these stories – and countless other reports –  highlight the need for government action and an inquiry on regional hospital resourcing and medical workforce issues that are compromising patient care – and at times costing lives.
A report in this weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald says thousands of test results were never followed up at a Dubbo Hospital last year. A whistle-blower doctor who worked at the hospital has alleged the prescription of wrong medications, missed broken bones and the death of a baby girl. Mid last year a NSW Health investigation concluded a systemic failing at the hospital contributed to an infant’s death.
Journalist and presenter of Channel 9‘s 60 Minutes program, Liz Hayes, tragically lost her father a year ago. In an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, Ms Hayes tells of how her father died a month after being admitted to the Emergency Department of Manning Base Hospital suffering pneumonia. On his first night in the Emergency Department, he received an overdose on one of his regular medications. He recovered in the Mayo – a  private regional hospital – but then suffered a massive stroke. Ms Hayes says the vital anti-stroke tablets her father took for a heart condition, atrial fibrillation, had never been given to him during his entire eight-day stay in the private hospital. Ms Hayes was also shocked to learn that the 79 bed private hospital has just one doctor on the wards with only a doctor on call after hours.
Ms Henry says she handles too many negligence cases and inquests involving avoidable death and serious injury in regional NSW.
“I see first-hand the impact of disproportionately poor health resourcing for rural and regional residents,” Ms Henry says.
“Governments – state and federal – need a proper, data based strategy with more funding to improve rural healthcare.”
She says there also needs to be more public data to monitor performance.
“We still have agencies such as the National Health Performance Authority refusing to release national data on death rates and adverse events in hospitals. In the United States and England, this information is available to the public – by postcode – at the touch of a button.”
“The strategy needs to tackle the reality for regional patients which is poorer access to health services. Many individuals have to travel considerable distances to access medical treatment – there are few doctors and even fewer specialists.”
“Lawyers and journalists play a vital role in exposing systemic issues in health care but it is up to governments to act on that information to prevent more people in regional NSW from poor outcomes including unnecessary deaths.”
A 2019 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AHIW) Rural And Remote Health report showed that the rate of potentially avoidable death increases from 94 per 100,000 people in the major cities to 129 in regional areas.  It shows that people living in rural and remote areas have higher rates of hospitalisations, disease, mortality, injury and poorer access to, and use of, health services, compared with those living in metropolitan areas.
Ms Hayes also shared the story of ABC journalist Jamelle Wells whose father was discharged from hospital to a nursing home against the family’s wishes. Her dad died five days later with a broken spirit – feeling unworthy of a hospital bed.
In September last year a damning ABC’s 4 Corners investigation – Health Hazard – shared the stories of patients who had died or suffered significant disability as a result of the care they received at their local regional hospital. These injuries – and deaths – were preventable.  The program prompted an outpouring of similar stories from many regional communities. After the 4 Corners’ report, some regional NSW doctors called for a state inquiry into regional healthcare, which has to date been ignored.
Catherine Henry has more than 30 years’ experience as a health, medical and aged care lawyer and is the principal of Newcastle based firm Catherine Henry Lawyers. She also worked for the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission before entering private practice.
The post Media spotlight on regional NSW hospitals’ under-resourcing and systemic failures appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

When our elderly client’s property had been sold and the sale proceeds were kept by her son, extended family became concerned that our client had been taken advantage of by someone she trusted the most. Fortunately, we successfully negotiated settlement of this matter and recovered the funds.
Our client (‘Mrs P’), was in her 80’s and owned a residence in the Western Suburbs of Sydney where she had resided for quite some time. Mrs P had a fall in January 2018 and was admitted to hospital for treatment. Hospital records identified cognitive issues at this time. Following her discharge, Mrs P made a power of attorney appointing her son to deal with her financial affairs.
In October 2018, Mrs P’s property was sold for $495,000.00, and she relocated to Tasmania to live with her son and his wife in a house they had just purchased. The son used $220,000.00 of the proceeds to purchase this property and the remaining proceeds were kept in an account held in the name of the son and his wife. It was alleged that these funds were available to Mrs P when she required.
Becoming concerned, family members travelled to Tasmania to retrieve Mrs P and take her to Queensland to live with her siblings and extended family. Upon review of her financial affairs, it became apparent that Mrs P’s pension had stopped due to social security gifting provisions, as a result of the sale proceeds being used by her son, and she did not have any income or savings.
Furthermore, on medical assessment, Mrs P was diagnosed with cognitive impairment, as well as a low level of education, literacy and numeracy. These factors raised concerns as to whether Mrs P fully understood and/or agreed to the sale of her property, relocation to Tasmania and the use of the proceeds by her son and his wife.
Upon advice given to our client’s niece (‘Mrs X’), Mrs X applied to the Queensland Administrative and Civil Tribunal in January 2020 where an order was made for the revocation of the son’s appointment as attorney, and Mrs X was formally appointed as Mrs P’s financial manager and enduring guardian.
Mrs P instructed Catherine Henry Lawyers to act in respect to the recovery of the proceeds. Mrs P’s son and his wife alleged that $220,000.00 of the proceeds were gifted to them. A caveat was lodged on the Tasmanian property in order to protect Mrs P’s interest. Following this, the parties reached an agreement in which the son and wife were to obtain finance and return the full sale proceeds to our client, Mrs P.
While this is a great result for Mrs P, it would be better if Mrs P was never placed in this situation. Thankfully, awareness of financial elder abuse is growing and increasingly there are steps being put in place to protect the vulnerable in our community.
If you find yourself in this situation or are aware of a loved one that is potentially exposed to these issues, please contact our Wills and Estates and Elder Law team for expert advice.
 
The post When family members financially exploit the elderly | Our Client’s Story appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

Quite often couples separate amicably and do not immediately attend to their division of property. However, there are important considerations for why you shouldn’t delay your property settlement.
While attending to a property settlement as soon as possible following separation is our recommendation, the impact of the delay can be increasingly important, particularly for older Australians.
If you delay in undertaking a property settlement and you jointly own assets, you will continue to be “tied” to your ex-spouse or partner following the separation.  This can have a negative impact if one party was to increase the parties’ debts, such as withdrawing the mortgage redraw balance.  It may also impact on your eligibility to obtain Centrelink benefits.
Another situation that can arise in any relationship, but particularly for older Australians, is if one party was to pass away prior to a property settlement agreement being finalised. In this scenario, once a party has passed away, you cannot commence property settlement proceedings in the Family Court or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. This means the property owned by the deceased spouse/partner will be dealt with in accordance with their will or the rules of intestacy if they did not have a will.  Many complications can arise if this were to happen, and it may negatively impact your entitlements.
If the ex-spouse/partner passes away after the commencement of court proceedings for property settlement, these proceedings can continue.
It is important that you seek advice early following your separation and notify your solicitor of any potential health issues so that your rights and entitlements are protected.  For more information read our Property Settlements FAQs article here.
If you would like expert advice on property settlement or other issues relating to family law, please contact our helpful team today on (02) 4929 3995.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The post Why you shouldn’t delay your property settlement appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

This week is Aged Care Week and, sadly, the plight of older Australians living in aged care has again been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.
Prominent geriatrician and head of the health law and ageing research unit at Monash University, Professor Joseph Ibrahim, told the Aged Care Royal Commission that Australia’s rate of death in residential aged care is more than 68% – the second-highest in the world behind Canada at 80%.
What we have seen unfold in Victoria’s residential aged care homes is a nightmare that could easily happen in other parts of Australia. It did happen in NSW aged care facilities earlier in the pandemic. Almost 70 per cent of all Covid-19 deaths in Australia have been related to aged care and more than 1,000 have tested positive.
This week, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety is looking at how aged care facilities have responded to Covid-19.  The evidence began with senior counsel assisting, Peter Rozen QC, claiming that federal authorities had failed to make a specific plan for Covid-19 in residential aged care facilities and was “under prepared”. The Federal Government must take responsibility for this crisis. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say “sorry”.
The revelations from the Royal Commission come after it was announced last week that the Victorian coroner will investigate the Covid-19 deaths at St Basils aged care facility. The NSW coroner is said to be doing the same in respect to the Newmarch House deaths.
Why are we seeing so many Covid-19 deaths in aged care?
It is not just that older Australians are more vulnerable to Covid-19.
The reasons for the crisis are systemic. We have a chronically underfunded and poorly regulated aged care sector staffed by unskilled or inadequately trained workers not equipped to deal with high-grade medical issues – and certainly not infection control. Aged care facilities cannot be expected to act as proxy hospitals.
There are good aged care facilities. Last week the media reported on a NSW aged care facility successfully averting a Covid-19 crisis through appropriate systems, appropriate staffing and proper planning. Sadly, that is an atypical situation.
We must learn quickly from these tragic situations to prevent more unnecessary deaths and, for the sake of the families involved, hold those responsible to account.
It was shocking to hear head of the Federal Health Department, Dr Brendan Murphy, say he did not think it appropriate to name those facilities currently battling Covid-19 due to the risk of reputational damage. The Aged Care Minister backed those comments. The Royal Commission also said it will not be looking to apportion blame over these tragic Covid-19 related deaths in its inquiry.
We would not accept that lack of transparency in any other setting. We must look at these deaths for what they are – wilful and reckless neglect and clinical mistreatment of frail elderly patients.
Coronial investigations are welcome as the coroner appointed will look at what happened and whether there has been compliance with appropriate standards of practice. A coroner has the power to make recommendations about how practices can be improved but government offices are full of sets of coronial recommendations sitting around gathering dust.
A coroner also has the power to refer conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions for the consideration of criminal charges. Manslaughter by criminal negligence would be the appropriate charge. However, experience shows that criminal sanctions are very unlikely. Here in Australia – as in the UK – we have had very few prosecutions of health providers for medically negligent manslaughter – and only one successful prosecution more than 200 years ago.
We know that regulation of the residential aged care system has been extremely poor. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission – and its predecessor – has been ineffective because it is lacking independence and transparency. We have an Aged Care Act that does not mention the word “regulation” and was written by aged care providers for providers.
Actions in negligence brought by family members of aged care residents whose deaths were avoidable will help hold those who have not complied with the relevant standard of care to account. This type of legal action has been shown to be an effective way to achieve change in systems in the aged care sector and the health sector.
The Federal Government must take responsibility for this crisis. Before the Royal Commission, we’d had 20 inquiries in as many years into aged care. Yet successive governments have not acted to reform our aged care system.
Covid-19 is in many ways just the next thing to expose the systemic problems in an aged care system that now demands a major overhaul.
Older Australians deserve better.
Catherine Henry is Principal at Catherine Henry Lawyers and a health and aged care lawyer and advocate. She is also the national spokesperson on aged care for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.
The post Covid-19 shows the cracks in our aged care system appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

The use of restraints in aged care facilities is a controversial and difficult topic.
Aged care facilities are permitted to restrain residents and sometimes this is in the best interests and for the safety of the resident, other residents and staff. The effectiveness of new laws to minimise the inappropriate use of restraints are currently being reviewed.
There have been a number of shocking cases in the media and told through the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety on abuse of aged care residents including through inappropriate restraints. Our elder law and aged care law team has handled cases for aged care residents and their families to take action against aged care facilities or staff members for inappropriate care, including inappropriate restraint.
How do aged care facilities restrain residents? 
Restraint is a very serious issue. It is defined as a practice, device, or action that interferes with someone’s ability to make a decision or which restricts their free movement.
Residents in aged care facilities are restrained using physical or chemical methods.
Physical methods include using bed rails, lap belts, restraining chairs, table overlays, hand mitts and vests. Physical restraint also includes locking a person in a room or building.
Chemical methods include using medication to change a person’s behaviour. Medications are prescribed if they have a therapeutic benefit. The 2019 Human Rights Watch report, “Fading Away” How Aged Care Facilities in Australia Chemically Restrain Older People with Dementia, affirms the point that “Medications should only be given when they have a therapeutic value. Medication for the purposes of controlling behaviour without a therapeutic purpose is chemical restraint.”
New laws regarding restraint in aged care facilities – Restraints Principles
On 1 July 2019, the Australian Government introduced new laws to minimise the inappropriate use of restraint in residential aged care facilities. Known as the Restraints Principles, these laws, for the first time, put obligations on residential aged care providers regarding the use of restraint. The Restraints Principles are contained in Part 4A of the Quality of Care Principles 2014.
Approved providers must ensure that restraint is only used in response to proper clinical assessment and (for chemical restraint) prescribing by health professionals.  Section 15F of the Principles covers use of physical restraint, and section 15G covers chemical restraint.
States and Territories have differing legislation relating to who can legally give substitute consent for restraint and in which specific situations.
Review of the Restraints Principles
The 2019 legislation requires the Department of Health to review of the new laws.
The review is underway. It will evaluate if, since the introduction the Restraints Principles, there has been a:

reduction in the inappropriate use of chemical and physical restraint in residential aged care
change in the levels of awareness, attitudes, skills and behaviours in relation to restraint across the aged care sector since the Restraints Principles were introduced.

The reviewer will research literature and policy documentation, physical and chemical restraint data, and seek input from key stakeholders, aged care residents and their families about their experience of the use of restraint since July 1 2019.
The findings will be submitted to the Department of Health in December 2020. The report will be tabled in Parliament and will be published on the Department’s website.
If you or someone you support experienced restraint at a residential aged care facility since July 1, 2019 you are invited to share your experiences in a confidential telephone interview. To be involved:

Click here for more information about the interview
Call AHA on 1300 119 564 (9 am to 5 pm AEST) between Friday 31 July and Monday 31 August 2020 to complete the interview over the phone
Email [email protected] or call 1300 119 564 (9 am to 5 pm AEST) for more information or to request an interpreter.

If you work for a provider of residential aged care (management or direct-care staff), you are invited to share your views on the Restraint Principles. For further information on the Review and the consultation, click here.
If you would like to contribute to this review, complete this anonymous survey by Friday 14 August 2020.
For further information about the review contact AHA on 1300 788 667 (9 am to 5 pm AEST) or email [email protected].
What should I do if I think a someone is being inappropriately restrained in an aged care facility?
You should raise the issue with the management of the aged care facility.
If you are dissatisfied with their response, you can also contact the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission which regulates aged care facilities.
Our caring and expert team of aged care lawyers can assist you in making a complaint and/or help you to take legal action against an aged care facility, medical practitioner or provider of aged care services. The law can be a powerful tool in changing practices and to help ensure your loved or other people do not experience inappropriate care.
Please do not hesitate to call us on (02) 4929 3995 for a confidential discussion so that we can listen to your needs. You may also get in touch via our contact page.
The post Inappropriate use of restraint in residential aged care appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

Hunter health and aged care lawyer, Catherine Henry, has taken out a top honour at the prestigious Australian Law Awards held on Friday (August 7) night.
The principal of Newcastle-based Catherine Henry Lawyers was named Regional-Suburban Lawyer of the Year.
Ms Henry was one of 10 finalists vying for the award. Her firm was also one of eight finalists for Regional-Suburban Law Firm of the Year Award.
She said she is humbled by the nominations and thrilled to have won over some very accomplished peers.
Ms Henry has pioneered bringing health, aged care law and elder law services, usually only available from capital city law firms, to regional NSW since returning to work in Newcastle more than a decade ago.
“It is really important that people who have experienced poor health care and aged care in regional areas have access to the highest quality representation to gain redress and justice,” Ms Henry said.
“Litigation is a way to hit poor operators and providers where it hurts – in their hip pockets – and thereby forcing positive change in healthcare standards,” she said.
She is continuing to expand and diversify her firm’s health law, aged care law and elder law services including developing a health disciplinary practice representing health professionals whose conduct has been questioned or prosecuted by health regulatory bodies. The firm is also doing work in challenging health decisions, preparing contracts for assisted reproduction, as well as health transactional work which give rise to both health and consumer law remedies. Expanded aged care and elder law services include aged care advocacy (accommodation disputes and challenging and negotiating aged care contracts) and financial elder abuse.
“We are representing more than 80 women who have received poor medical care from disgraced doctors – representing them individually rather than via a class action.”
“Some clients were rejected by capital city law firms but we are taking them on.”
“This year we have maintained our 100 per cent success rate in medical litigation cases thanks to my expert health law team.”
“Not many firms take on the confronting task of representing the frail aged, particularly in regional areas.”
Ms Henry said she is passionate about using the law to achieve health and aged care reform and to advocate vulnerable groups. She is also the Australian Lawyers Alliance national spokesperson on aged care and elder law.
The national award is not the only recent accolade for Ms Henry. She is one of only two lawyers in the Doyle’s Guide list of New South Wales’ top medical negligence and malpractice compensation lawyers that are based outside of Sydney. She has been recognised in the Guide three years running.
The Australian Law Awards is in its 20th year.
The post Hunter Lawyer win Australian Law Award – Regional Lawyer of the Year appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

The team at Catherine Henry Lawyers supports Red Nose Day on August 14, 2020. Here’s why and how you can help reduce Australia’s still too high child-death rate.
What is Red Nose Day?                                                                                    
According to Red Nose, in Australia, nine children still die suddenly and unexpectedly every day. That’s more than 3,000 babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers every year – more than double the number of deaths on our roads. These children are dying from stillbirth, SIDS, and fatal sleeping accidents.
Why are we supporting Red Nose Day?
Our health law team helps mothers and fathers, who experience the tragedy of losing their child either through stillbirth or neonatal death to seek compensation and answers to their questions about their trauma and loss.
We have bought a Red Nose Day supporters’ pack and will be fundraising for Red Nose. Staff will wear a red nose and we will hold a morning tea to kick start our fundraising.
The issues of stillbirth and neonatal death
Stillbirth occurs when a baby, greater than 20 weeks gestation, is delivered with no signs of life. Neonatal death is said to occur if a baby dies within the first 28 days of life.
Around 800 mothers a year in NSW lose their child either through stillbirth or death in the neonatal period. There are six stillbirths in Australia every day or 2000 every year. This figure is more than a third worse than the best-performing countries. The number of neonatal deaths is more than 800 per year or two to three per day. Despite significant medical and technological advancements over the last 20 years, the numbers of deaths are not reducing.
Variations in perinatal deaths in different areas of NSW
There are variations in perinatal deaths (stillborn or neonatal deaths) by areas of NSW.
An ABC investigation in July 2020 showed that the rate of stillbirths is consistently worse in regional Australia than in major cities. In the most populated areas of regional Australia, babies are less likely to be born alive now than in the year 2000.
But the 2018 NSW Mothers and Babies Report (table below) show that the perinatal mortality rate in NSW in 2018 was 8.1 per 1,000 births. The rate was below this average in the Central Coast, mid North Coast, Western and Northern NSW local health districts. It was above that average in Hunter New England and Far West local health districts.

Many stillbirths and neonatal deaths are avoidable
Our health lawyers have handled many cases involving neonatal death and stillbirth which have shown the trauma or death to have been avoidable and a result of negligence.
The law can play a vital role in helping parents get answers when they lose a child. It is also a useful tool to prevent these tragic events from occurring again. Holding people responsible accountable for any negligence helps ensure procedures to change.
You can read some of our client success stories here and here.
The value of the law is heightened because unfortunately there is no systematic approach to investigating or auditing these deaths for preventable factors at a national level. In most states, the data is either not produced or is unavailable, making it impossible to know how many deaths are linked to hospital safety or error. Former members of the NSW maternal and perinatal mortality committee told the ABC the state does not systematically audit stillbirths and neonatal deaths at the state level.
Does COVID-19 cause stillbirth?
This is an interesting and important question. An article by Anna Wald, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, NEJM Journal Watch Women’s Health reviews a study on this issue by Khalil A et al. JAMA July 2020.
The jury is still out with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pregnancy outcomes continue to be examined. There has been an increase in stillbirths during the pandemic in a large London hospital, but none occurred among women with documented COVID-19.
Investigators assessed rates of stillbirth among 1681 births during the four months prior to February 1, 2020, (prepandemic) compared with 1718 births between February 1 and June 14, 2020, (pandemic). Demographic characteristics of the women in both groups were similar.
Stillbirth rates were 1.2% (prepandemic) versus 7% (pandemic). Routine testing for COVID-19 was not conducted during the pandemic period, and all women with stillbirths were asymptomatic. Postmortem and placental pathology were not consistent with viral infection, indicating that none of the stillbirths occurred in women with COVID-19. 
Recent unexpected newborn deaths at Blacktown Hospital
Sometimes the law or the threat of legal action helps to prompt reviews – as does the media.
Questions raised by the Sydney Morning Herald this month appear to have escalated inquiries into the unexpected deaths of four newborns at Blacktown Hospital over the past 18 months.
In the SMH article, Vijay Roach, president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said unexpected newborn deaths were uncommon in NSW hospitals. He said the causes are often multi-factorial but this doesn’t preclude identifying, and acknowledging, individual errors and systemic failures.
“The community has a right to accountability from health professionals and the medical system. When adverse events occur, there must be open disclosure, forensic investigation and a willingness to change processes to improve patient care,” Mr Roach said.
“It is essential that any adverse outcome is fully investigated and that, during the process, patients, their families and the hospital staff are fully supported.”
Action to reduce stillbirth
The Australian government has developed the National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan as well as initiatives such as the national Safer Baby Bundle to cut the rate of still-births in late pregnancy by 20% through. The public consultation on this plan closed at the end of July 2020.
The Safer Baby Bundle, modelled on European programs, is a suite of eLearning modules, workshops and a campaign for pregnant women targeting five key areas. It provides information to both pregnant women and to clinicians.
The NSW Safer Baby Program was launched at a Clinical Excellence Commission workshop at Westmead Hospital in February 2020. Western Sydney, South Western Sydney, Hunter New England and Central Coast local health districts have joined as national research partners to reduce stillbirth as they are geographically diverse and have some of the busiest maternity departments in NSW.
The Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth within the University of Queensland has been established. Red Nose also funds research into preventing childhood death. That’s one of the reasons why we’re fundraising – to support this important research.
Who is behind Red Nose Day?
Red Nose (formerly called Sids and Kids) is an authority on safe sleep and pregnancy, and bereavement support for families affected by the death of a child. Founded in 1977 by bereaved parents, they created one of Australia’s most successful public health programs – “Back to Sleep” – which has so far reduced SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) by 85 per cent. The first Red Nose Day, held in 1988, urged Australians to wear a red nose and be “silly for a serious cause”.
For information support and resources visit www.rednose.org.au
If you would like to support our fundraising efforts for Red Nose please click here.
We can fight for you or your loved one
If you or a loved one has experienced injuries as a result of a pregnancy complication, neonatal death or birth trauma, please get in touch with one of our caring, expert, health lawyers about the options available to you.
Read our information sheet on Stillbirth and Neonatal death or our article – Assisting clients who suffer the anguish of stillbirth or neonatal death.
The post Catherine Henry Lawyers supports Red Nose Day appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety resumed public hearings this month with a hearing in Melbourne between July 15 and 17.
In the spotlight was the provision of mental health care, oral health care and allied health care to people receiving aged care services. Improving those services in aged care is critical because they often play a critical role in ensuring the health and wellbeing of older people.
This is not the first time the Royal Commission had conducted a hearing on the interface between the health care and aged care systems. At its December 2019 hearing in Canberra the Royal Commission looked at the need to improve access and consistency in primary health care services, particularly access to general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners and primary care nurses for older people in residential aged care.
Commissioners heard evidence from a range of witnesses on possible improvements in funding models, training for aged care workers, and incentives for health care professionals to provide these services to people in their homes. It also looked at the role and responsibility of approved providers of aged care services to ensure aged care recipients receive the mental, oral and allied health care they need.
The hearing was closed to the public and media in light of the Covid-19 pandemic but could be viewed by live webcast. It is good to see hearings resume.
Delay to the Royal Commission’s Final Report
The Royal Commission’s final report will now be handed to government in February 2021. The report was initially due in November 2020. The delay is due to interruptions to the Commission’s work because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The delay is understandable and it is important that the commissioners have time to provide a complete and thorough report.
My concern is that the report’s delay further delays urgent reform of the aged care sector including rewriting the Aged Care Act. I am also concerned that the Federal Government is not listening to and will not respond to the Commission’s findings in any case. (Read more about my concerns here.)
Submissions to the Royal Commission close July 31
The commissioners have extended the deadline for general submissions to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety by a month to Friday, 31 July 2020.
As at July 22, 2020 the Commission had received 8750 submissions.
The Commission is progressively publishing a selection of general submissions from members of the public and organisations on its website.
Next hearings in Sydney
The next Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety hearings will be in Sydney in August.
Sydney Hearing 2 will run from August 10 to 13, 2020 and will inquire into the response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in aged care. Sydney Hearing 3 is on August 13 and 14, 2020 and will focus on aged care accommodation.
The post Aged Care Royal Commission Update – Melbourne hearings, Delay to final report, Submission period extended appeared first on Lawyer Newcastle | Catherine Henry Lawyers Health and Relationship Lawyers.