Abstract
Our study investigated how the standard of surgical care is assessed within the English and Welsh litigation process. The 'shadowline' represents the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable standards of care. Our hypothesis was that different assessors risk adopting materially different interpretations regarding the acceptable standard of care. Any variation in the interpretation of where the shadowline falls will create uncertainty and unfairness to surgeons and patients alike. We summarised the legal literature and suggested the factors affecting the assessment of surgical standards. We illustrated our findings on distribution curves. There was a risk that the shape of the curve and the location of the shadowline may vary according to the assessor. Importantly, a gap may have developed between the legal and clinical shadowlines in respect of the consenting process. We suggested how a gap between the surgical and legal shadow lines could be narrowed. Clinical governance, balanced literature and realistic expert assessments were all part of the solution.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
