Reforming clinical negligence in England: lessons about patients' and providers' values from medical injury resolution in New Zealand and the United States of America

Abstract

England's current review of clinical negligence and consideration of alternatives (such as no-fault compensation) should be welcomed. Valuing what patients and families want, and need, after harm in healthcare necessitates a system that enables their needs to be met. Medical negligence litigation is misaligned with patients' needs after harm events. By contrast, alternatives (such as no-fault and communication-and-resolution programmes) offer opportunities to place patients', families' and providers' values at the forefront of resolution efforts. This article offers empirical insights and lessons from two alternative systems for resolving medical injuries: New Zealand's (NZ's) administrative compensation scheme, and the US communication-and-resolution programmes (CRPs). The review in England presents an exciting opportunity to design a system for responding to medical injuries that harnesses the strengths of alternative approaches for resolving medical injuries, while also improving on the challenges with treatment injury in NZ.