ABSTRACT
The patient in question was a 49-year-old property service manager who underwent an inguinal hernia repair under general anaesthesia, as a day case. But he accepted that the patient did not fall into the category of those patients who should be prescribed chemical thromboprophylaxis; since his particular risk of developing deep-vein thrombosis was low. The court found that the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines were not wholly clear in identifying the group of patients to which the specific guidance on venous thromboembolism (VTE) should be given on discharge. The court concluded that since pneumatic boots were used to reduce the risk of VTE for all surgical patients under general anaesthetic in the defendant hospital, the use of the boots in the claimant's case was a tacit admission that he fell into the group of patients at risk of this complication.
