10 Clinical Insights for Solicitors in Sepsis Negligence Claims

In sepsis negligence claims, establishing that treatment was started is only part of the picture. The investigation may also turn on whether clinicians monitored the patient’s response, reconsidered the diagnosis and escalated care while effective intervention was still possible.

Drawing on her recent INNEG webinar, Consultant in General and Acute Medicine Dr Elora Mukherjee, who has provided medico-legal expert evidence since 2009, shares ten practical insights for solicitors investigating potential sepsis negligence claims.

From apparently reassuring blood results to worsening observations and missed sources of infection, the guide highlights clinical details that may warrant closer scrutiny within the medical records.

For solicitors, these insights can help identify the relevant questions for an expert and assess whether earlier or different management would probably have changed the patient’s outcome.

Download The Guide Here >

Dr Mukherjee has been a Consultant in Acute Medicine since 2011. Her clinical experience includes assessing and managing acutely unwell adult patients during the first 24–72 hours of hospital admission, when decisions about investigation, treatment, monitoring and escalation can be particularly significant.

Based on her recent INNEG webinar, this guide brings together ten insights on sepsis recognition, treatment, deterioration and expert selection, including three clinical scenarios illustrating potential breach and causation issues.

Inside you’ll learn:

• Why sepsis may be present without the expected clinical signs.
• How NEWS scores and lactate trends can reveal missed deterioration.
• What the Sepsis Six can help solicitors examine about initial treatment.
• Why negative blood cultures do not necessarily exclude sepsis.
• How an overlooked infection source can delay effective treatment.
• What to scrutinise about senior review and critical care escalation.
• Why treatment must be reassessed when a patient fails to improve.
• What three clinical scenarios reveal about diagnostic and management decisions.
• Why identifying a failure in care does not establish that it caused harm.
• How to select the appropriate expert for the clinical issues in dispute.

A key theme throughout the guide is the importance of reviewing findings in context. A normal early inflammatory marker, negative blood culture or apparently reassuring observation may not tell the whole story. The patient’s symptoms, previous antibiotic treatment and changing condition may all affect the assessment.

The guide also looks beyond the initial prescription of antibiotics and fluids. Where deterioration continues, solicitors may need to examine whether clinicians reviewed treatment effectiveness, investigated alternative infection sources and obtained appropriate specialist input.

Three clinical scenarios explore severe deterioration following a suspected urinary infection, malaria initially mistaken for a urinary infection, and biliary sepsis attributed to the wrong source. Together, they illustrate how history-taking, investigation, reassessment and handover can influence the analysis of a potential claim.

Throughout, the guide distinguishes between shortcomings in care and their consequences. Expert evidence may need to address when an opportunity to intervene arose, what should have happened and whether different management would probably have prevented additional harm.

For solicitors, the guide provides a practical basis for reviewing the chronology, identifying gaps in the evidence and matching expert instructions to the particular decisions under scrutiny.