This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-29638458

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Musgrove Park eye operations continued after warnings Musgrove Park eye ops 'painful' and 'rushed', report claims
(about 4 hours later)
Eye operations at a Somerset hospital which led to complaints from some patients, continued despite staff raising concerns with managers. Patients who had eye operations at a hospital where staff raised concerns about the procedures said they suffered pain and felt rushed, a report claims.
Cataract operations carried out at Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton in May left some with blurred vision.Cataract operations carried out at Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton in May left some with blurred vision.
The procedures on 62 people were carried out in a mobile unit provided by Vanguard Healthcare. The procedures were carried out on 62 people in a mobile unit by by private provider Vanguard Healthcare. Twenty-five of them had a "normal recovery".
The report, obtained by the BBC under FoI, says ophthalmology staff voiced concern four times over the operations. Ophthalmology staff voiced concerns but operations continued, the report says.
Burns and metal
The first operations happened on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday at the start of the month. The hospital had planned to operate on 400 people.The first operations happened on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday at the start of the month. The hospital had planned to operate on 400 people.
But by the Tuesday, some patients had come to back to the hospital complaining about their vision.But by the Tuesday, some patients had come to back to the hospital complaining about their vision.
The initial internal staff emails focused on a lack of follow-up arrangements for the patients and said it was unusual to have three patients complaining of problems. The report claims that three patients needed further surgery because of retention of lens matter, two suffered eye burns while six patients were found with microscopic metallic fragments in their eyes.
Operation go-ahead One told staff they were "shouted at" for moving, the report said.
Initial internal staff emails focused on a lack of follow-up arrangements for the patients and said it was unusual to have three patients complaining of problems.
The national average rate for complications in this type of surgery is 4.64%, but the report said the figure on patients sent to the mobile unit differed "10-fold" from this.The national average rate for complications in this type of surgery is 4.64%, but the report said the figure on patients sent to the mobile unit differed "10-fold" from this.
Ophthalmology staff also told managers in emails that "one a year would have been an issue".Ophthalmology staff also told managers in emails that "one a year would have been an issue".
Hospital managers decided to review all patients who had been operated on, but also gave the go-ahead for new surgeries to take place while previous patients were still being checked.Hospital managers decided to review all patients who had been operated on, but also gave the go-ahead for new surgeries to take place while previous patients were still being checked.
These new operations then had to be stopped after staff assessing patients who had previously undergone procedures found some also had eye problems.These new operations then had to be stopped after staff assessing patients who had previously undergone procedures found some also had eye problems.
On the final day of surgery, there were seven operations despite the warnings over previous complications.On the final day of surgery, there were seven operations despite the warnings over previous complications.
'Email delay'
A statement from the hospital said: "The decision to allow surgery to go ahead on 9 May was taken following a number of teleconference conversations with all parties involved during that week."A statement from the hospital said: "The decision to allow surgery to go ahead on 9 May was taken following a number of teleconference conversations with all parties involved during that week."
But the hospital said that not everybody included in the email was in the hospital that day and "there was a delay in the email being seen".But the hospital said that not everybody included in the email was in the hospital that day and "there was a delay in the email being seen".
"Surgery was stopped during the morning as a result of the email and feedback from the review clinic that was also being held at the same time," the statement added."Surgery was stopped during the morning as a result of the email and feedback from the review clinic that was also being held at the same time," the statement added.
Report refusal
The report investigated whether surgical technique could have been to blame but said this could not "provide the whole explanation".
The Vanguard mobile unit was brought in to help lower waiting lists for the eye operations.The Vanguard mobile unit was brought in to help lower waiting lists for the eye operations.
The firm has not been available for comment but earlier in the week it said there were "lessons to be learnt by all parties". The firm's CEO, Ian Gillespie, said he wanted to "personally convey" his sympathy for any patients affected.
"The investigation does not identify any one cause, but instead points to a number of different factors which may have led to the complications experienced by patients," he said.
"No issues have been identified with the Vanguard mobile theatre facility itself; however there are clearly lessons to be learnt by all parties."
Musgrove Park Hospital had initially refused to release its internal report citing legal issues with its publication.Musgrove Park Hospital had initially refused to release its internal report citing legal issues with its publication.
But it was released following a Freedom of Information Act request by the BBC.But it was released following a Freedom of Information Act request by the BBC.