Septic shock due to biliary peritonitis as a consequence of laparoscopic cholecystectomy
AI-generated summary
A 69-year-old woman died of septic shock following bile leak complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Critical failures included: (1) inappropriate transfer to low-dependency unit on post-op day 1 despite consultant's undocumented concerns; (2) failure to initiate antibiotics at ward round despite sepsis indicators; (3) delayed surgical response despite documented critical illness; (4) poor communication between surgical team, with provisional diagnoses and operative plans not documented or communicated; (5) incomplete handover of antibiotic administration status to theatre; (6) inadequate nursing care with missed vital signs and failure to escalate MEWS score of 3. Expert evidence confirmed antibiotics initiated immediately post-diagnosis would have reduced mortality risk. Systemic failures included bed management prioritizing resource efficiency over patient safety, inadequate intern supervision, poor documentation, and deficient root cause analysis that failed to interview treating clinicians.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
surgeryanaesthesiaintensive careemergency medicine
Error types
diagnosticmedicationcommunicationsystemdelay
Drugs involved
morphinemetronidazoleampicillingentamicinfentanyl
Clinical conditions
bile leakperitonitisseptic shocksepsismulti-organ failurehepatic ischaemiabowel ischaemiahypotensiontachycardiarenal failure
Procedures
laparoscopic cholecystectomyERCP with sphincterotomyMRCPCT scan with contrastabdominal X-rayre-laparotomyendotracheal intubationarterial line insertioncentral line insertionurinary catheter insertionnasogastric tube insertion
Contributing factors
bile leak from cystic duct following laparoscopic cholecystectomy
inappropriate transfer to low-dependency rehabilitation unit on post-operative day 1
failure to initiate antibiotics at ward round despite sepsis diagnosis
delayed surgical intervention
poor documentation of provisional diagnoses and operative plans
undocumented consultant concerns not communicated to nursing staff
incomplete handover of antibiotic administration status to operating theatre
lack of regular vital sign monitoring in rehabilitation unit
failure to escalate MEWS score of 3
inadequate supervision of junior doctors
breakdown in multi-disciplinary team communication
ad hoc allocation of clinical responsibilities
incomplete antibiotic administration prior to surgery
infected bile in abdomen (likely from prior ERCP sphincterotomy allowing retrograde duodenal contamination)
Coroner's recommendations
Rockhampton Hospital should seriously consider allocation of resources for dedicated discharge planners in major acute wards, with additional nursing resources to replace nurses performing discharge planning duties
Rockhampton Hospital should seriously consider whether patient outlie system is necessary and appropriate for acute and post-surgical patients
If patient outlie for acute/post-surgical patients must continue, conduct complete review of system including: patient reviews before transfer, appropriate and complete handover, detailed nursing care plans, consultation with treating doctors before transfer, consultation with supervisors of sending and receiving wards, and regular reviews of appropriateness of continued placement
Rockhampton Hospital should ensure all relevant care providers are interviewed in Root Cause Analyses investigations, with statutory privilege protection to enable open discussion and early identification of issues
Issue of drain placement in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to be referred to Royal Australasian College of Surgeons for ongoing review and debate
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. Some material may have been redacted or restricted by court order or privacy requirements. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction — report an inaccuracy here.