Clinical Negligence Claims Research Articles

Clinical negligence claims in the age of digital technology

Clinical negligence claims in the age of digital technology

How current law and policy supports providers of NHS healthcare in England to respond to patient harm: A scoping review protocol.

Harm arising from National Health Service (NHS) healthcare results in significant human cost for the patient, those who care for them, and the medical staff involved. Furthermore, patient harm results in substantial financial costs to the public purse. Improving how NHS providers in England respond to patient harm could reduce the number of claims for clinical negligence brought against NHS. Doing so will ensure those affected receive the justice they deserve and protect the public purse. Law and policy are key to supporting providers of NHS healthcare to respond to patient harm but are not necessarily understood and therefore can be challenging to apply to practice. Research exploring how law and policy supports this understanding is limited. The purpose of this scoping review is to address this knowledge gap and improve understanding by critically evaluating how law and policy supports providers of NHS healthcare in England to respond to patient harm. The review will use the methodological framework proposed by Arskey and O'Malley, Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. Search strategies will be developed using selected key words and index terms. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Westlaw and reference lists of relevant publications will be searched to identify relevant grey literature. Two reviewers will independently assess the extracted data against the eligibility criteria. All studies identified will be charted and the results presented as a narrative synthesis.

Exploring the Factors that Drive Clinical Negligence Claims: Stated Preferences of Those Who Have Experienced Unintended Harm.

Better understanding of the factors that influence patients to make a financial claim for compensation is required to inform policy decisions. This study aimed to assess the relative importance of factors that influence those who have experienced a patient safety incident (PSI) to make a claim for compensation. Participants completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving 10 single profile tasks where they chose whether or not to file a claim. DCE data were modelled using logistic, mixed logit and latent class regressions; scenario analyses, external validity, and willingness to accept were also conducted. A total of 1029 participants in the United Kingdom responded to the survey. An appropriate apology and a satisfactory investigation reduced the likelihood of claiming. Respondents were more likely to claim if they could hold those responsible accountable, if the process was simple and straightforward, if the compensation amount was higher, if the likelihood of compensation was high or uncertain, if the time to receive a decision was quicker, and if they used the government compensation scheme. Men are more likely to claim for low impact PSIs. The actions taken by the health service after a PSI, and people's perceptions about the probability of success and the size of potential reward, can influence whether a claim is made. Results show the importance of giving an appropriate apology and conducting a satisfactory investigation. This stresses the importance around how patients are treated after a PSI in influencing the clinical negligence claims that are made.

Consent with complications in mind

Parity of esteem describes an aspiration to see mental health valued as much as physical. Proponents point to poorer funding of mental health services, greater stigma and poorer physical health...

Informed consent in neurosurgery - Evaluation of current practice and implementation of future strategies.

In recent times, clinical negligence claims against National Health Service hospitals have doubled, with 8% of claims being made due to "failure to warn/informed consent." This study aimed to assess the current compliance of the neurosurgical division within a large tertiary neuroscience center with the national legal framework and professional guidelines around the issue of surgical consent and to develop strategies to improve the consent process. Electronic patient records (EPR) were accessed to collect demographic data and information regarding the surgical procedures. Telephone questionnaires were carried out. Neurosurgical registrars were interviewed. The author met with the trust's Legal team, the neuropsychology lead, and the trust's consent lead. Fifty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Of the respondents to the questionnaire, 98% felt that they were adequately informed during the consent process. When consenting patients, all registrars felt that they explained the reason for the procedure, detailed benefits, and major risks, including uncommon and rare risks. However, 50% admitted to not specifically discussing the postoperative recovery time or alternatives. Only 15% admitted to documenting on the EPR or through a letter to the patient's General Practitioner. Informed consent is a delicate moment of communication between a clinician and the patient. Regular training and good communication skills help staff to focus on the most relevant aspects of consent, which should be delivered in an appropriate environment and with family support. Audio-visual aids can support the process but do not replace good communication.

Current thinking about medicolegal aspects of temporomandibular joint surgery

This paper considers the current situation regarding medicolegal risks in temporomandibular joint surgery from three perspectives: the law, the patient, and the surgeon. The law relating to successful claims of clinical negligence requires that a cause-and-effect relationship is demonstrated by the claimant. Complications are considered in the light of recent research on their stratification in other fields of surgery. Surgeons become repeat offenders rarely. They display certain common characteristics which are discussed in this paper.

The lived experiences of UK physiotherapists involved in Cauda Equina Syndrome litigation. A qualitative study.

Cauda Equina Syndrome is a serious spinal pathology, which can have life changing physical and psychological consequences and is highly litigious. Litigation can have negative personal and professional effects on the healthcare professionals cited in a clinical negligence claim. There is an absence of research looking at the experience of the physiotherapist and as such, it is unknown the impact litigation is having on them. This study explored the lived experiences of UK physiotherapists in relation to Cauda Equina Syndrome litigation. A qualitative design, informed by Gadamerian hermeneutic phenomenology, using semi-structured interviews was used to explore participants' lived experiences of litigation. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Findings were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis framework. Nvivo software was used to facilitate analysis. The study is reported in accordance with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative (COREQ) research. 40 interviews took place online or over the phone, with physiotherapists and stakeholders. Four themes were found; 'litigation effects', 'it feels personal', 'learning from litigation' and 'support and training'. This is the first study to investigate the lived experiences of litigation in UK physiotherapists. Involvement in clinical negligence affected physiotherapists' physical and mental wellbeing and impacted their clinical practice. Most physiotherapists felt litigation was a personal attack on them and their ability to do their job. Physiotherapists highlighted perceptions of a 'blame culture' and perceived stigma associated with the claim, which often led to a lack of sharing and learning from litigation. Physiotherapists emphasised the need for emotional support for those going through a legal claim and that training was needed to understand the process of litigation and range of potential outcomes.

Litigation in Septorhinoplasty Surgery: A Pan-Specialty Review of National Health Service (the United Kingdom) Data.

Success in septorhinoplasty surgery can be difficult to assess due to a lack of objective and measurable outcomes. If patients' expectations are not met, it places surgeons performing septorhinoplasty at risk of litigation which can be stressful and costly. The National Institute of health (NHS) Resolution is a government-funded organization in the United Kingdom that provides expertise to the NHS on resolving patient concerns. Data were requested from NHS Resolution for claims involving septorhinoplasty surgery over a period of 5 years between April 2015 and April 2020. Rhinoplasty claims performed by all specialties were included. Data included the claim status, incident details, alleged injury, damages claimed, and damages paid. A total of 31 claims were identified by the study, equating to a total cost of £1,347,336.10. Of the 31 claims for rhinoplasty or septorhinoplasty, 9 cases were open (29%, £962,361.00) and 22 cases were closed (71%, £384,975.10). The common causes for claims were "intraoperative problems (32%)," "failure to warn-informed consent (19%)," and "foreign body left in situ (13%)." The most common injuries were "cosmetic disfigurement (39%)," "unnecessary pain (29%)," and "additional/ unnecessary operation (29%)." This study highlights the need for improved awareness of clinical negligence claims among surgeons who perform septorhinoplasty. Results are applicable to all specialties who perform the procedure. The study highlights the importance of assessing patients' motives and expectations prior to surgery and emphasizes the need for a well-documented rigorous consent process.

The actual cost of clinical negligence in the NHS.

John Tingle, Lecturer in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, considers the debate around reform of the system for clinical negligence claims.

Litigation in pediatric otorhinolaryngology: Lessons in improving patient care.

Medico-legal claims involving children place a substantial financial burden on health services and have a profound emotional and psychological impact on clinicians. Our objective was to analyze both the common causes and cost of litigation in pediatric otorhinolaryngology. A retrospective review of all clinical negligence claims within pediatric otolaryngology (0-17 years inclusive) in NHS (National Health Service) England held by the clinical negligence service 'NHS Resolution between' 4/2013 and 4/2020. There were 100 claims in pediatric otorhinolaryngology accounting for an estimated potential total cost of just under £49 million with an average of 14 claims per year. Over half (52%) of claims were related to an operation with cause codes "Operator Error/Intra-Op Problem", "Diathermy Injury" and "Failure to Warn - Consent" most cited. The most common operation cited in a claim was tonsillectomy with an average cost per claim of £47,084. There were 21 claims coded as either "failure to diagnose" or "failure to treat" in relation to cholesteatoma, with an average cost per claim of £61,086. This is the largest study to date analyzing the reasons and potential cost of clinical negligence claims within pediatric otolaryngology. Many learning opportunities exist to reduce patient morbidity, mortality and improve the patient experience through litigation data analysis.

GP indemnity for your practice: Who to contact?

State-backed indemnity provides for clinical negligence claims brought against practices in England and Wales, but there is some confusion about who to contact in the event of a claim. Dr Dawn McGuire explains

Patient safety and clinical negligence: the importance of reflection.

John Tingle, Lecturer in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, discusses the need for careful consideration when looking to draw lessons from patient safety crises and clinical negligence claims.

End-of-term reports on clinical negligence claims.

John Tingle, Lecturer in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, discusses the annual reports of NHS Resolution and the Medical Defence Union.

Hospital dentistry litigation in England: clinical negligence claims against the NHS 2015-2020.

Introduction Litigation against the NHS in England is rising. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and characteristics of hospital dentistry clinical negligence claims in England.Methods A retrospective review was undertaken of all clinical negligence claims in England held by NHS Resolution relating to hospital dentistry between April 2015 and April 2020. Analysis was performed using the information for cause, patient injury and claim cost.Results A total of 492 claims were identified, with an estimated potential cost of £14 million. The most frequent causes for clinical negligence claims included failure/delay in treatment (n = 175; £3.9 million), inappropriate treatment (n = 56; £1.8 million) and failure to warn/obtain informed consent (n = 37; £1.5 million). Wrong site surgery was cited in 33 claims. The most frequent injury reported was dental damage (n = 197; £4.3 million), unnecessary pain (n = 125; £2.3 million) and nerve damage (n = 52; £2.4 million).Conclusion Clinical negligence claims in hospital dentistry are related to several different aspects of patient management and are not limited to treatment complications alone. Human ergonomics and patient perception of dentistry cannot be controlled but a focus on patient safety measures and effective communication can serve as tools to combat these factors.

Legal support when facing a civil clinical negligence claim

Legal support when facing a civil clinical negligence claim

Clinical negligence claims for pressure injuries from the perspective of a tissue viability medico-legal nurse expert.

Clinical negligence claims for pressure injuries against the NHS continue to rise annually. This article will discuss the number of claims and financial costs to the NHS, together with the legal processes involved. Issues such as duty of care, breach of duty and harm and how these are interpreted in law will be explained, together with advice on how to avoid a potential negligence claim in the future. The author will discuss scenarios specific to primary care, such as non-adherence to pressure injury prevention strategies and how to manage these effectively. The importance of accurate, concise, relevant and factual documentation will also be discussed in detail.

1047 Regional Audit: Valid and Informed Consent for Lower Limb Arthroplasty in Orthopaedic Surgery: Are We Doing Enough?

Abstract Aim To investigate regionally the validity of the patient consent process for lower limb arthroplasty, compared to set data standards, with a view to investigating whether the consent process could be improved, and if so, how? Method Regional data from 8 hospital trusts (50 data sets collected from each hospital) across England was collected retrospectively from May 1st, 2021, (25 THR, 25 TKR), collated and collectively analysed against agreed, pre-determined set criterion. Data standards included ascertaining whether alternatives to surgery were offered and exploring the likely benefits and risks. Capacity to consent for procedure-specific surgery was measured as patients’ ability to understand, weigh up, retain, and communicate their decisions regarding surgery. Hospitals regional data was collectively analysed. Results Capacity was only successfully fulfilled and documented regionally in 11.6% of hip and 13.9% of knee replacement surgeries, despite Consent Form 1 having been filled out in 94.8% and 88.5% of cases respectively, which were procedure specific in only 74.0% and 72.1% of cases. Conclusions Significant improvement can clearly be made to an area of already such high clinical negligence claims. We propose a novel solution involving the digitalisation of the consent process, including multimedia surgical videos to better inform patients and reliably assist in establishing the validity of a patient's consent. The implications of this are limited not only to Orthopaedic surgery but could have far-reaching consequences across all surgical (and indeed medical) specialties, where obtaining valid and informed consent for procedures remains integral to quality patient care.

A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit General Population Preferences Around the Factors Influencing the Choice to Make Clinical Negligence Claims

ObjectivesThis article determines public stated preferences around different factors that influence the choice to make clinical negligence claims against a national healthcare system. MethodsA large online survey was conducted using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with the UK general population (N = 1013). DCE tasks involved a single profile and participants chose whether to make a claim for compensation (yes/no) after one of 3 randomly allocated patient safety incident (PSI) “scenarios” of different severities (mild, moderate, severe). DCE attributes described the actions of the healthcare system after a PSI and characteristics of the clinical negligence claims process. The data were modeled separately for each scenario (mild, moderate, severe) using logistic regression. Marginal effects and the probability of making a claim in a baseline case were estimated. ResultsProbability of choosing to claim was reduced by receipt of an apology, investigation and prevention of recurrence of the PSI, and longer time until claim decision and increased by an easy and straightforward claims process and high chance of compensation and for the mild scenario higher compensation amounts. Marginal effects and baseline case probabilities differed by scenario severity. ConclusionsThe results suggest the actions of the healthcare system after a PSI and characteristics of the claims process have a larger impact on the probability of making a claim for milder PSIs. For more severe PSIs, a larger probability of making a claim was observed, and the choice was less influenced by the actions of the healthcare system after the PSI and characteristics of the claims process.

Proceed with reasonable care: When legal principles inform training to prevent harm during childbirth.

Maternity claims represent the highest value and second highest number of clinical negligence claims reported to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA). Most obstetric litigation is brought under the law of negligence which requires the claimant to show three things: that a duty of care was owed, that the duty was breached and that the breach caused loss. Training to prevent litigation should focus on 'Clinical' - multidisciplinary, simulation-training and 'Non-Clinical' (starting all discussions with women and their families timely, informing them about 'material' risks and addressing their particular concern, treating decision-making as a team process, using translation services early in the process, even before the emergency occur). Therefore, maternity claims are one of the most frequent and most expensive ones. Each unexpected pregnancy outcome can possibly trigger litigation. Effective training should address both 'clinical' and 'non-clinical' situations.

New development: Ten years of consolidated accounts in the United Kingdom public sector—taking stock

IMPACT As taxpayers, we are sowers and reapers of public services. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has put considerable pressure on governments, financially and in terms of maintaining the effective delivery of public services. The UK’s experience with Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) suggests that, first, while not a panacea, WGA has highlighted assets and liabilities (such as future pension liabilities, clinical negligence claims and public private partnership obligations) that are currently not captured under national accounting principles. Second, there is evidence emerging (albeit slowly) that WGA aids planning, facilitates decisions on the use of assets, enhances the transparency of public sector finances and contributes to conversations on long-term risk management and fiscal policy. Against a backdrop of increasing future obligations and rising debt levels, this article explains how WGA information can aid government decision-making.