A WOMAN has won substantial damages after medical staff at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital failed to properly treat her partner who later died of cancer.

Among the mistakes was the filing away of a crucial scan by a temporary worker without it being seen by a consultant.

Tina Lane, 42, died of ovarian cancer in February. In what is thought to be a landmark ruling, her civil partner, Elizabeth Austin, has been awarded "substantial" undisclosed damages against the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust and Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust.

Miss Lane, from Shaftesbury in Dorset, was the victim of a series of delays in diagnosis and treatment, the National Health Litigation Authority has been told.

In an out-of-court settlement, the authority has accepted that she "would have had a high prospect of being cured of her disease" if treated with appropriate care.

Liz, 38, teacher, said: "I have lost a part of me. I can't help being angry because she should still be here. Tina was a very kind person, very loyal and very brave. She was a shepherd who loved working with animals.

"She received the news from Winchester (admitting its mistake) about three days before she died. That made us both that much sadder, to know that it was preventable and there was no need for her to be dying."

Liz added: "The only reason I'm talking about it is to raise awareness for other people. If you are unhappy about what you are told, don't be afraid to question it. People make mistakes, but you don't realise you can ask for a second opinion, that it is OK to go back to the GP. We just thought if the consultants said that then it must be right. But it is never right if you have a malignant growth to have to wait nine months. We just thought if you have to wait nine months that means it mustn't be very serious."

Justine Spencer, of Penningtons Solicitors for Miss Austin, said: "No award can compensate for the loss of Tina's life or the fact that several windows of opportunity to treat her were missed."

In a statement the Winchester trust said: "Both trusts accepted that there were shortcomings in the care provided to Miss Lane and that those shortcomings, tragically, had an adverse effect upon her prognosis. Both trusts have also formally apologised to Miss Lane's civil partner.

"Each trust has investigated this matter extensively with a view to ensuring that the quality of their healthcare services continually improve so as to avoid similar tragic cases.

"The trust was unable to establish who was responsible for filing the scan results in the patient notes, but it is thought to have been a temp. As a result of this case, enhanced induction training has been implemented for temporary admin and clerical staff to ensure a similar thing does not happen again."

In June 2006 Miss Lane was diagnosed with a cyst in Salisbury and referred to a consultant at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital, who suggested that it would be safer to deal with the cyst rather than leave it.

The consultant had recommended that she should undergo a laparoscopy and so an appointment was made for November 2006 and the op set for March 2007.

In January 2007, she visited her GP again because of worsening abdominal pain. The RHCH consultant said he was unable to bring forward the operation.

The following month an ultrasound scan showed the cyst was growing. The GP faxed a copy of the scan to the RHCH but it was filed without being shown to the consultant. A temporary worker is thought to have filed the fax.

A few days later, she was admitted to Salisbury District Hospital with severe abdominal pain and an urgent operation showed the cyst was malignant. Cancer spread and Miss Lane died on February 7.

Ms Spencer said: "Had an ultrasound scan been performed when Miss Lane attended the Winchester clinic in November 2006, it would have been apparent that the cyst was growing quite quickly and required removal in the very near future. If surgery had been performed then, Miss Lane's chances of survival would again have been extremely high.

"Finally, if the RHCH had taken appropriate steps in January 2007, following the GP's request to bring Miss Lane's appointment forward, on the balance of probabilities, the spread of the tumour that subsequently appeared in her lymph nodes could have been prevented and her chances of survival would have remained extremely high."

What do you think? Leave your comments below.