2023-05-24 15:26:40
Chemist & Druggist recently reported an open letter from a number of scientists to the Prime Minister https://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/CD137023/Claims-Pharmacy-First-could-fuel-antibiotic-resistance-disingenuous . The letter, published in The Telegraph, expresses concern about allowing pharmacists to prescribe antibiotics; and the risk that pharmacist prescribing will undermine efforts to manage antimicrobial resistance.
A recent High Court case makes it clear that that problems can also arise if a prescriber fails to prescribe an antibiotic, as well as highlighting that when pharmacists to undertake additional roles such as prescribing, this will inevitably expose them to potentially increased liabilities for failing to diagnose accurately or failing to prescribe. The case additionally highlights that it is not always sufficient to prove negligence in clinical negligence cases: causation is often also a key issue.
In J & J Franks Limited v Shotter and others [2023] EWHC 1080 (KB), the Claimant was the owner of a three-year-old thoroughbred racehorse called Sand Diego. Sand Diego had made his debut as a two-year old racehorse in July 2019 and by February 2020 he had completed 4 races and had won his last race at Sandown in September 2019 before being rested for the winter.
Between 21 and 26 Feb 2020, Sand Diego was suffering from a bacterial infection in his right hind leg known as focal peritarsal infection. The horse was seen by a veterinary surgeon employed by the Defendant. The infection was not initially diagnosed, and the vet advised bandaging the affected leg. Antibiotic treatment for this infection was eventually commenced at 11pm on Sunday 23 February 2020 at 11 pm. However, Sand Diego did not recover from the infection and was euthanised in Liphook Veterinary Hospital on 28 February 2020.
The Claimant alleged that the Defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of the vet and claimed damages of £325,000.
By the time of the trial, the Defendant admitted that the veterinary surgeon had failed to arrive at the appropriate diagnosis of infection and admitted that antibiotic treatment should have been commenced when the vet was first consulted.
Despite finding that the vet was negligent in failing to diagnose an infection and failing to prescribe antibiotics from the start of treatment, the judge, Clare Padley (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), dismissed the claim because causation had not been proved. The judge was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that if Sand Diego had been treated with antibiotics on the morning of Saturday 22 February, he would have survived.