Final Report > Chapter 17: Parents' Experiences > When a child died

When a child died

18 When, sadly, their child died many parents were critical about the way in which bad news was broken. We were told of occasions when there was a lack of privacy, of a perception of being hurried out of the way. Some parents told us that staff appeared anxious for them to leave the hospital and not speak to other parents on the ward. [30] At the time, the UBHT's policy was for the parents to be encouraged to return home as soon as possible, and for their general practitioner (GP) to be informed of the situation immediately so that appropriate support could be given locally. [31] Unhappily, the effect of this on some parents was that they felt that, once their child had died, the hospital ceased to behave as if it had any other responsibilities by way of care. [32] We note that, here, perceptions are everything. Philippa Shipley, mother of Amalie, was told that she would have to leave the hospital as `our presence there would upset other patients and their families'. [33] Malcolm Curnow, father of Verity, recalled that: `both my wife and I felt under pressure to leave the hospital ... I felt as if we were on a conveyor belt. One of the nursing staff asked us to clear our room, as it was needed by another family'. [34]

19 Other parents, by contrast, commented very favourably on the counselling and support which they received on the death of their child, and indeed for many years after, in the form of cards, telephone calls, and remembrance services. [35] Justine Eastwood, mother of Oliver, told us: `We had the news of Oliver's death broken very gently and privately to us. Privacy, at times like these, was uppermost on the minds of the staff. We were given the option to clean Oliver up and prepare him after his surgery which I declined. We were then allowed as much time as we required just to be with him alone. I remember being spoken to about the necessity of a post-mortem and inquest because of the circumstances under which Oliver died. We did speak with the coroner at a later date about the findings of the inquest'. [36] John Mallone, father of Josie, reported how: `On the morning of Friday 11th January, it was clear that Josie was going to die'. He said the staff put up screens to give them privacy and Josie was taken out of her incubator and placed on a pillow. [37] The support provided by staff for parents was complicated by the fact that some nurses and doctors found it very difficult to deal with their own emotions on the death of a child. In such a case, a more senior nurse or counsellor could take over the task of supporting the parents.

20 Our overall impression was that, in circumstances that were harrowing for all concerned, the nursing staff showed considerable sensitivity and support throughout. [38] Indeed, the demands, the experience and the skills needed on Ward 5 were recognised to be so exacting that the usual chaplaincy volunteers, who assisted elsewhere at the hospital, were not asked to work there. [39]

21 We heard from some parents of a lack of sensitivity about the process for dealing with the body of the child, especially in terms of information about post-mortem examination and burial. We commented on this issue at length in our Interim Report. [40] There was also evidence of poor communication between the hospital and the families' health visitors or GP, [41] and even letters sent to parents to bring their child to outpatient appointments, when, in fact, the child had died. On the other hand, we also heard praise for the work of Miss Stratton in offering photographs and handprints when a child had died, and great appreciation for the annual service of remembrance for bereaved parents of children who had died. We acknowledge that finding the least distressing way of breaking bad news to families, particularly immediately following surgery, is a challenge to any hospital system. We also acknowledge that Bristol made some effort in the area of support and counselling. But these services were not given a high priority: indeed, they had to be funded initially from charitable contributions, and they were poorly managed. We regret the low priority attached to what we regard as an essential feature of a service involving high-risk procedures on young children, Moreover, we note that the provision of information to bereaved parents about post-mortems was made the responsibility at the BRI of Mrs Diane Kennington. Mrs Kennington told us that she never received any training to enable her to carry out this role. She was merely assigned the task having previously worked at the BRI as a cashier. At the BRHSC, advice to bereaved parents was the responsibility of the portering staff under Mr Frank Long. They did their best, but without training they cannot be described as the appropriate professionals.

Footnotes

[30] WIT 0421 0012 Rosemary Riddette-Jones, mother of Luisa

[31] WIT 0421 0019 Rosemary Riddette-Jones

[32] WIT 0415 0009 Karen Meadows, mother of Sarah

[33] WIT 0392 0020 Philippa Shipley

[34] WIT 0004 0009 Malcolm Curnow

[35] WIT 0184 0012 Robert Langston, father of Oliver; WIT 0288 0011 Tracey Morgan, mother of Daniel; WIT 0244 0014 Alison Havenhand, mother of Victoria; WIT 0225 0011 Lynne Lloyd, mother of Kate; WIT 0229 0023 Paul Bradley, father of Bethan

[36] WIT 0022 0015 - 0016 Justine Eastwood

[37] WIT 0155 0016 John Mallone

[38] WIT 0274 0009 Rev. Yeomans; WIT 0401 0006 Mr MacIntosh, social worker, BRI, since 1997; WIT 0385 0007 Ms Appleton, social worker, BRI, 1989-1994

[39] WIT 0274 0005 - 0006 Rev. Yeomans

[40] `The Removal and retention of human material' 2000. A copy of the Interim Report and Annexes can be found in Annex C

[41] WIT 0222 0021 Maria Shortis, mother of Jacinta