The Madrid Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has denounced three doctors – one of them was the director – of the Adolfo Suárez public residence for reckless homicide and omission of the duty to help for depriving two of its users infected by COVID-19 in the first wave the pandemic of “adequate” health care, which “reasonably” influenced his death. The Public Ministry maintains that, in both cases, the absence of a “strict” nursing and medical follow-up in the residence, as well as the lack of activation of the referral protocol to the hospital center had effects on the “fatal outcome”.
Chronology of the disaster in the residences of Madrid: 7,600 deaths, crisis in the Government and judicial investigation
The complaint, the third by the Prosecutor’s Office for these crimes in the region, shows that between March 1 and June 18, 2020 they occurred in that public management residence attached to the Madrid Social Assistance Agency (AMAS) 91 deaths, of which 80 were related to COVID-19. As of March 3, 2020, the center had a total of 274 residents, of whom only thirteen were self-employed, while 38 had a mild dependence and 223, a moderate or severe dependence.
In the residence hall, with its director in charge, prevention and organization measures were put in place between May and June 2020 to try to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 disease “including the reinforcement of health care and the development of a daily communication system ”with a geriatrician from the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital.
However, the Prosecutor’s Office maintains that none of the doctors managed to activate the aforementioned coordination mechanism “despite the fact that the budgets to do so concurred, and without a justified reason” in relation to the aforementioned two users, who died in the residence on the days April 6 and 1, 2020, respectively, “having caused with their actions that they could not be assessed by the geriatric unit of the referral hospital, and even transferred to its facilities, at the same time that they did not provide adequate follow-up at the residence. and medical control, of all of which the director of the center was aware, who also did not take any action to solve the situation ”.
The 69-year-old EGP was seen for the first time by the doctor on April 4, three days after starting with symptoms that indicated that he could be infected with COVID-19. Thus, during a routine visit, the doctor prescribed a broad-spectrum antibiotic, while requesting that the patient be followed up. Despite this, the user could not overcome the picture and died two days later. “At no time was consultation with the referral hospital, neither to suggest a possible referral or to request treatment guidelines,” says the Prosecutor’s Office on this case.
In addition, it specifies that the health documentation shows that “immediately” after the doctor saw the user, it was when she perceived the seriousness of the situation “by prescribing a special mask and symptomatic treatment that, unfortunately, at this time no longer worked. effect”. For the Prosecutor’s Office, the time it took to provide medical assistance, as well as the lack of a “strict” follow-up to prevent the user from removing the oxygen therapy system, together with the absence of any inter-consultation, could have a “reasonable” impact on the result final, which is “directly attributable” to the person responsible for the health situation of the patient.
The other patient’s case is similar. JRB had a numerous history of bronchial aspiration and on March 25 he suffered one of these episodes without receiving any type of medical attention “to the point that the user was not seen by a doctor until two days after the incident.” On March 26, however, the man began to have a fever and his level of consciousness decreased. During those five days prior to his death, which occurred on April 1, “there is no evidence of any nursing treatment or that he was transferred for follow-up and control to said department.”
There is also no evidence that the doctors made any consultation with those responsible for the geriatrics unit of the reference hospital or that they requested help in the residence itself, “and all this despite the fact that they were not subjecting the user to an exhaustive control like the one they knew , based on his previous experience, which he required on these occasions ”. What’s more, they did not even assess the possibility that the user was infected with coronavirus, a circumstance that they only assessed on the same day he died.