Search the hub
Showing results for tags 'Negligence claim'.
Found 141 results
-
Content ArticleThis article details the case and findings of an investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) into the death of Stephen Durkin. Stephen died after suffering organ failure from sepsis, while under the care of Wye Valley NHS Trust. His wife, Michelle Durkin, subsequently made a complaint that delays in the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis led to her husband’s death.
-
Content ArticleIn this blog Patient Safety Learning provides an overview of the key points included in its response to the call for evidence for the Health and Social Care Select Committee Inquiry examining the case for reform of NHS litigation.
-
Content Article
What to do when complications occur (3 January 2018)
Patient Safety Learning posted an article in Processes
In this article, Cruikshanks and Bryden outline the process that should take place after an adverse event has occurred.- Posted
- 1 comment
-
- (and 3 more)
-
Content ArticleWorking together and maximising the benefits of intelligent technology can have a truly transformative impact on clinical negligence claims, writes Molly Kent, a patient safety specialist at Radar Healthcare, in this HSJ article. Claims essentially arise out of dissatisfaction, usually with a process, service or poor patient journey. Each claim represents an individual’s story – no two cases will be identical, just as no two patients are identical. Molly argues, however, that it’s when we bring the information from claims together that we can truly learn. Rather than looking at each case in its own silo, we should be building the big picture, and considering things like systems of internal control, human factors, communications, audit and education.
-
Content ArticleIn order to obtain compensation for harm arising out of medical treatment received within the NHS in Scotland, the elements needed to establish negligence under the law of delict must be satisfied. The Scottish government has expressed the view that a no-fault compensation scheme in relation to clinical negligence claims made against the NHS in Scotland could be simpler than the existing litigation system and could support the development of the concept of a mutual NHS, as well as a positive feedback and learning culture. With this in mind, the government considers that such a scheme is the favoured way forward for the NHS in Scotland. This report reviews and analyses existing no-fault schemes in a number of countries/jurisdictions: New Zealand (NZ); Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway); and the schemes operating in Virginia and Florida (United States) for birth-related neurological injury.
-
Content Article
JCP Solicitors: NHS Redress Scheme
Patient Safety Learning posted an article in Legal matters
The NHS Redress Scheme, also known as the “Putting Things Right Scheme,” is a method of handling and investigating complaints about the NHS service within Wales. In NHS Redress claims, redress may consist of an apology, or a financial award of compensation of up to £25,000.00 (The limit for the NHS Redress Compensation claims). JCP Solicitors explains the Redress Scheme and how to claim under the scheme. -
Content ArticleA new best practice guide helping trusts learn more from NHS negligence claims has been issued in the drive for better patient safety. With the cost of harm for clinical negligence claims from incidents in 2019/20 expected to cost the NHS £8.3 billion, the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme and NHS Resolution have worked together to produce 'Learning from Litigation Claims', offering trust clinicians, managers and legal teams a practical and structured approach to claims learning, and sharing examples of best practice from across England. The aim is to maximise what can be learned from litigation, for the benefit of patients and to curb escalating costs.
-
Content ArticleOn 22 September 2021 the Health and Social Care Select Committee launched a new inquiry examining the case for reform of NHS litigation, identifying concerns regarding a significant increase in clinical negligence costs and missed opportunities for learning to improve patient safety. Here is the Association of Personal Injuries Lawyers' response to the call for evidence for the Health and Social Care Select Committee Inquiry. Related reading Patient Safety Learning's response to the NHS Litigation Reform AvMA's response to the NHS Litigation Reform
-
Content ArticleObstetric incidents can be catastrophic and life-changing, with related claims representing the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts’ (CNST) biggest area of spend. The Maternity Safety Strategy set out the Department of Health and Social Care’s ambition to reward those who have taken action to improve maternity safety supported through the Maternity Incentive Scheme. Year four of the Maternity Incentive Scheme launched on 9 August 2021. The scheme supports the delivery of safer maternity care through an incentive element to trust contributions to the CNST. The scheme, developed in partnership with the national maternity safety champions, Dr Matthew Jolly and Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent OBE, rewards trusts that meet ten safety actions designed to improve the delivery of best practice in maternity and neonatal services. In the fourth year, the scheme will further incentivise the ten maternity safety actions from the previous year with some further refinement.
-
Content ArticleDiagnosis lies at the heart of the medical encounter, yet it has received much less attention than treatment. It is widely assumed that negligent diagnosis claims should be governed by the Bolam test, but in this paper, Liddell et al. demonstrate that this is not always the case.
-
Content ArticleOn Wednesday 26 January, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for First Do No Harm (APPG FDNH) held a virtual public meeting on the topic of redress schemes for those who have suffered avoidable harm linked to pelvic mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos. This meeting was an opportunity to hear from representatives of various patient groups about what victims need and what they are missing from current support mechanisms. Below is a recording of the meeting.
- Posted
- 1 comment
-
- (and 5 more)
-
Content Article
APIL report: The value of compensation (January 2022)
Patient Safety Learning posted an article in Legal matters
The essential purpose of compensation is to, as far as possible, enable the person who has suffered from negligent medical treatment to get back to a ‘normal life’, i.e. the position they were in prior to the negligence occurring. The impacts of negligence are wide-ranging and include job loss, poor physical health, financial troubles, relationship breakdowns and a loss of self-identity and self-worth. Patients who have suffered negligent medical treatment may be able to take legal action against the NHS and claim compensation if it can be shown that the negligence has directly resulted in injury. Patients can take legal action on behalf of themselves or on behalf of their next of kin if that person doesn’t have capacity to pursue action themselves or has died as a result of the negligence. -
Content Article
On Wednesday 26 January, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for First Do No Harm (APPG FDNH) held a virtual public meeting on the topic of redress schemes for those who have suffered avoidable harm linked to pelvic mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos. This meeting was an opportunity to hear from representatives of various patient groups about what victims need and what they are missing from current support mechanisms. The meeting heard from Kath Sansom, founder of the Sling the Mesh campaign. Attached is the speech she presented and results from the Sling the Mesh survey. View the recording of the public meeting -
Event
Bevan Brittan webinar: Extravasation & clinical negligence
Sam posted an event in Community Calendar
Amy Walsh, an experienced IV nurse, will address the clinical negligence issues surrounding extravasation including: incidence and aetiology, presentation and recognition, management, treatment and prognosis of this iatrogenic injury. Register -
EventThis Westminster conference will discuss the next steps for addressing rising clinical negligence costs in the NHS. It will be an opportunity to examine the future direction for reform, following the government consultation on lower value clinical negligence claims. Sessions focus on the way forward for learning from mistakes and litigation, improving patient safety, and supporting healthcare staff involved in clinical negligence claims. Delegates will also examine options for streamlining the processing of claims, international best practice, and the potential for moving towards a no-fault system proposed by the Health and Social Care Committee. Overall, areas for discussion include: the current landscape - assessing the factors driving rising clinical negligence costs - the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on increased risk of claims from diagnosis and treatment delays impact of policy developments - including the increasing use of technology and the move to integrated care - addressing variation and inequalities - changes in the Health and Care Act next steps - priorities for the development of approaches that encourage the health system to learn from mistakes - assessing the potential impact of a no fault system efficiency: opportunities to improve the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of claims resolution the potential for a mandatory system of fixed recoverable costs in low value claims implications for the future direction of system reforms patient safety and protecting healthcare staff - next steps for learning from claims - developing collective learning - using best practice guidelines - support for the ethnic minority workforce international examples - lessons from approaches to clinical negligence claims in other countries - how they might be applied effectively in England NHS Resolution’s strategy to 2025 - which sets out aims to reduce harm, distress and costs, and use indemnity arrangements to drive change across the health system. Agenda Registration
-
Community PostI’ve just been listening to the 10 o’clock news tonight and it has been covering the report into Paterson, the breast surgeon who may have needlessly operated on thousands on women. One of the recommendations is that patient safety should be a ‘top priority’ across the NHS (again!!). Another interesting recommendation is that the NHS (and private healthcare providers) need to be better at sharing information about medical staff. Currently, medical staff seem to be able to be investigated in one hospital, and then move to another without any of their history following them. Maybe we need some sort of central system, like Doctify for employers? What do you think?
-
Content ArticleNHS Resolution has launched its first eLearning module that focuses on learning from the significant avoidable harm that can occur during antenatal and postnatal care and is seen in the cases notified to its Early Notification Scheme. This free resource is designed to support clinicians working in maternity services. The module uses three illustrative case stories to immerse learners into the antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care provided to mothers and the neonatal care provided to their babies. It aims to deepen learners' understanding of NHS Resolution’s role within the healthcare system, develop their understanding of the law of negligence as applied to clinical claims and explore how clinical decisions and actions can lead to avoidable harm. The module takes approximately two-and-a-half hours to complete and can be used as evidence of CPD hours undertaken for revalidation.
-
Content ArticleFailure to be aware of and to follow clinical guidelines and protocols could constitute clinical negligence, but not in all cases, and much will depend on the facts of each case. John Tingle, Lecturer in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, discusses aspects of the law on clinical guidelines and other care management tools.
-
Content ArticleIn this blog, Paul Whiteing, Chief Executive of Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA), highlights how proposed changes to the UK legal system will affect people who have been harmed by healthcare and their families' access to justice. He describes the negative impact of legislation that would make claims less than £100,000 subject to a fixed cost regime. Paul writes, "The consequence of a fixed cost regime is that where the patient wins their case against the healthcare provider, the costs awarded will be capped at the rates set by Parliament." Related reading Read our Patient Safety Spotlight interview with Paul.
-
Content ArticleJohn Tingle and Amanda Cattini discuss some recent reports on patient safety and clinical negligence, considering the need for policy makers to look forward as well as to react to crises
-
Content Article
This is part of our series of Patient Safety Spotlight interviews, where we talk to people working for patient safety about their role and what motivates them. Paul talks to us about how AvMA helps people who have suffered direct or indirect medical harm and to help them to seek justice, why upcoming changes to the legal system could restrict access to clinical negligence claims and the importance of compassionate engagement in improving harmed patients’ experiences of the healthcare system. -
News ArticleThose harmed by the NHS will “have to pay again by losing access to justice” as a result of government plans to introduce fixed costs, campaigners have claimed. The Department of Health & Social Care has published long-awaited proposals for fixed recoverable costs for fast-track cases, and significantly chose to set the fees at levels recommended by defendant representatives, rather than higher ones proposed by the claimant side. Peter Walsh, chief executive of Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA), noted that the government consulted on similar proposals in 2017 and received a thumbs down from the majority of respondents. He said: “It is shocking that the government is still pushing to bring in these illogical and potentially unfair proposals rather than looking at the root causes of high costs and addressing them… “The government seems to have ignored the fact that the likely effect of these proposals would be that many people whose lives have been devastated by perfectly avoidable, negligent treatment will not be able to challenge denials or get access to justice. “In effect, the very people that the NHS has harmed through lapses in patient safety will have to pay again by losing access to justice. If lawyers are unable to claim for time they spend overcoming denials of liability, injured people will not be able to get legal representation.” Mr Walsh argued that the best way to save the NHS money was to improve patient safety to prevent these incidents in the first place, “and when mistakes do happen investigate them properly and make early, fair and appropriate offers of compensation without costly litigation”. Read full story Source: Legal Futures, 1 February 2022
-
News Article
Legal costs for NHS negligence claims may be capped
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Lawyers’ fees for clinical negligence claims against the NHS could be capped under proposals being considered by ministers. Launching a consultation, the government said “tackling increasing and disproportionate legal fees” for cases worth less than £25,000 would protect NHS funding. The Department of Health said claimants’ legal costs for “lower value claims” were “currently more than four times higher on average” than the NHS’s legal costs in defending the claims. It cited a case in which lawyers claimed £72,000 in legal costs when the patient was awarded £3,000. Patient Safety Minister Maria Caulfield said: “I’m committed to making the NHS the safest healthcare system in the world. When harm does occur, it’s essential the NHS learns from what went wrong, and people who have been negligently harmed are entitled to claim compensation. “Unfortunately, we are seeing some law firms profiting at the NHS’ expense through legal costs that far outweigh the actual compensation awarded to patients. This diverts resources from the NHS frontline as staff work hard to tackle the COVID-19 backlogs. “Our proposals will cap legal costs for lower value claims to ensure they are fair and proportionate, and ensure patients’ claims are resolved as swiftly as possible without reducing the compensation they deserve.” A spokesman for Thompson’s Solicitors, which acts for patients in such claims, told iNews: “Costs already have to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary in order to be recoverable. The answer is for the NHS to admit fault quicker and not cause cases to drag on for years." Read full story Source: iNews, 31 January 2022 -
News ArticleInjured NHS patients have spoken out about the human cost of clinical negligence in a new report published as MPs examine how to cut the health service’s bill for causing harm. The House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee is gathering evidence for its inquiry on NHS litigation reform. “There is a fixation on the financial cost of clinical negligence, rather than on the human cost and the reasons why injured patients have to make a claim for compensation at all,” said Guy Forster of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) a not-for-profit group which campaigns on behalf of injured patients and their families. “There are a lot of voices and opinions in any debate which concerns the NHS and patient safety, but they are almost never the voices and opinions of the patients. This is why APIL has commissioned The Value of Compensation report,” said Mr Forster. Patients who took part in the research cite mounting debt; uncertainty about their future health; isolation; abandoned careers; relationship breakdowns; and loss of independence, as some of the many far-reaching side effects of injuries sustained through failures in care. “Patients are devastated to have trusted the NHS with their health and then have to live with the pain and suffering of an injury which should have been avoided,” said Mr Forster. “This report provides new insight on how compensation can help rebuild their lives.” “None of them relish having to make a claim for compensation. I cannot stress enough that the money is never, ever a ‘windfall’ for an injured patient,” he went on. “It is obvious that full and fair compensation is critical for injured patients. It should go without saying that the cost of compensation would be cut if the harm were not caused in the first place. But it is critical that when things go wrong, injured people are cared for properly and have the chance to get back on track.” Read press release Source: APIL, 12 January 2022
-
News Article
Man fitted with stoma after 'unnecessary' surgery
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
A patient who suffered internal bleeding from surgery following an incorrect diagnosis, said he has "nightmares" about how he was treated. The public services ombudsman for Wales said it was "completely avoidable" and recommended health officials make a redress payment of £10,000. The man was initially referred to Cardiff's University Hospital of Wales with appendicitis. But, after a number of tests and scans, it was wrongly determined he had Crohn's disease, and colon surgery was recommended which led to a series of complications. The man, known as Mr D in the ombudsman's report, suffered internal bleeding from the initial surgery and required a stoma, despite being told the chances of that were "very, very slim". He also developed a hernia which required further surgery, and a mesh to be inserted. "I try and do things that wouldn't have been a problem for me years ago, and find I struggle," he said. "Sometimes I wake up still in pain from some of the scars. I sometimes have nightmares." The man, who has Asperger's syndrome, also said it was not taken into proper consideration during consultation. "I don't think there's a lot of things where people do take into account neurodiversity," he said. Ombudsman Nick Bennett called the case "regrettable" after investigating the man's complaint. "Physicians responsible for Mr D's care should have employed a watch and wait approach in which his condition would probably have settled without surgical treatment," he said. "Instead, Mr D, a vulnerable individual, faced completely avoidable trauma of unnecessary surgery and post-treatment complications - a trauma which saw him seek mental health support." Cardiff and Vale University Health Board said it accepted the findings. Read full story Source: BBC News, 7 December 2021
