header-logo header-logo

Clinical negligence needs radical reform

08 July 2021
Issue: 7940 / Categories: Legal News , Professional negligence , National Health Service
printer mail-detail
The clinical negligence system is causing rising costs for the NHS while ‘perpetuating a culture of blame’, according to a report, ‘The safety of maternity services in England’
The report, published this week by the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, calls for a less adversarial process to be established.

It found that investigations do not always meaningfully engage with those outside the senior management team, which limits learning opportunities, while a ‘blame culture’ exists within the NHS, which inhibits employees from speaking up. It recommends that clinicians receive training in how to respond to and learn from errors.

The report highlights that compensation based on finding fault does not have a deterrent effect by encouraging clinicians to practice more safely. ‘In practice it is the reverse: fear of litigation stifles learning which ultimately makes the system less safe for patients.’

It recommends implementing an alternative approach, used in other countries, where a threshold of ‘avoidability’ rather than ‘negligence’ is used as a basis for compensation.

Writing in this week’s NLJ, Lorin Lakasing, consultant in obstetrics and fetal medicine at St Mary’s Hospital, London, looks into some of the reasons why high value obstetric claims related to neonatal brain injury account for more than half of settlements paid out by the NHS. To put this percentage into perspective, the NHS paid £2.4bn in compensation in 2018-2019, with more than £83bn set aside for future claims. Legal fees make up about one third of total compensation paid out.

Lakasing writes that ‘escalation often occurs after the opportunity to be proactive was missed so emergency protocols are actioned…the countdown on the hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy clock has begun. Whatever is said and done thereafter matters not’.

The ensuing investigation, requiring hours of interviews tends to examine intrapartum events [during labour and immediately after childbirth].

Lakasing writes: ‘The misapprehension of analysing poor outcomes by focusing solely on intrapartum events is born of laziness and a poor understanding of the service.

‘Precursors to poor outcomes lie in the antenatal period but these remain largely unscrutinised. To do so would be complex, unpopular and onerous.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll