I am very disappointed by your coverage of the story and subsequent leader column regarding Audrey Vant who was admitted to the Great Western Hospital with MRSA.

It gave a misleading view of the situation and implied criticism of things over which we had no control.

I took particular exception to the leader column which suggested Mrs Vant may have contracted MRSA at our hospital, something we had been at great pains to point out was not the case.

There are a number of issues which I feel need to be addressed.

Your story claimed we could not say how Mrs Vant acquired MRSA on her skin.

In all fairness how could we? She had MRSA when she arrived - she could have contracted the bug from any number of sources before she was transferred to the Great Western Hospital.

Mrs Vant's daughter Yvonne Jepson complained we did not immediately isolate her mother.

Mrs Vant was screened for MRSA on arrival. It actually takes days to grow the bacteria in order to test positive for MRSA.

This is a microbiological process involving incubation which can take a minimum of two days, often more, as was the case in this instance.

The leader column caused most concern, as it contained many inaccuracies:

  • It suggested Mrs Vant may have contracted MRSA at the GWH after we had been explicit about the fact that she did not
  • It suggested that we had "propelled the blame back and forth like Wimbledon finalists" when in fact we never blamed anyone. All we ever said was that Mrs Vant arrived at our hospital with MRSA. We have no idea where Mrs Vant contacted the bug so how could we apportion blame?
  • We didn't isolate Mrs Vant immediately but we did screen her for MRSA on admission, which is why we were certain she had MRSA when she arrived at the GWH
  • The leader states we were inept at giving "vital details" about MRSA cases. How were we in any way inept? As soon as we knew Mrs Vant had MRSA she was told and placed in isolation. As for the source - again, how could we possibly know where the bug came from?
  • The leader also claims we are inept at preventing outbreaks, yet in a panel alongside the main story was a supporting piece explaining how the GWH has one of the best records in the country for containing MRSA
  • Finally, the leader says no one in authority will be held to account or punished. For what? We carry out routine screening of patients admitted to surgical wards which many trusts do not; we isolated the patient as soon as we knew she had MRSA and, in any event, we are one of the best performing trusts in the country for infection control. Why should any of that warrant punishment?

We have made every effort to work closely with the family but unfortunately they have not been prepared to listen to or accept explanations we have tried to give them.

The truth is that in any hospital in any town or city in the country there is likely to be at least one patient who has MRSA.

In most cases, the bug is confined to a wound site or merely existing on the patient's skin and is treatable with antibiotics.

In the vast majority of cases it is not life-threatening and, with the treatment, will clear up within a week.

Here at the GWH we work hard to fight this bug by encouraging the wide use of alcohol hand gel to kill off the bug, rigorous hand washing by staff treating patients and the isolation of patients found to be MRSA positive.

It is unlikely in the near future that we will wipe out MRSA completely but we are doing all we can to keep it at a minimum.

N Hall.

Associate director at Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust