header-logo header-logo

08 July 2021
Issue: 7940 / Categories: Legal News , Professional negligence , National Health Service
printer mail-detail

Clinical negligence needs radical reform

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll