Compensation payments to Northampton General Hospital patients totalled £23.9 million over five years, latest figures showed.
Payments by year (rounded) were 2008/09 £3.7m; 2009/10 £3.1m; 2010/11 £6.6m; 2011/12 £5.2m; and 2012/13 £5.3m.
The hospital’s own figures also showed there were 44 new clinical negligence claims, for unspecified amounts, made between April 2013 and March 2014. NHS hospitals cannot reveal details about claims because of patient confidentiality and solicitors rarely give figures in relation their client’s compensation.
However, part of the £23.9m compensation – which is paid from an insurance-type NHS scheme rather than hospital funds – is likely to have gone to Martin Balfe, whose 62-year-old wife died when surgeons failed to spot a bile leak in June 2011.
It was later found this caused her organs to fail.
Meanwhile, the number of incidents staff believed had the potential to harm to a patient were 118 in 2013/14 compared with 76 in the previous 12 month. NGH said this was down to better reporting procedures, particularly around pressure ulcers.
Discounting pressure ulcers, ‘serious incidents’ rose from 47 to 54 in the 12 month period.
This article is courtesy of the Northampton Chronicle.
Regularly updated blog featuring news, articles and information relating to clinical/medical negligence.
Friday, 29 August 2014
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
Child molester sues prison chiefs for £20,000 over claims dodgy dental work led to him losing his teeth
A paedophile who was unhappy with the treatment he got when he had toothache is in line for a second payout.
Neil Robertson, who was dubbed a dangerous psychopath during his trial, successfully sued prison bosses in 2009 when he blamed Peterhead jail staff for failing to get him an NHS dentist.
Now the child molester is suing the Scottish Prison Service for £20,000, claiming the treatment he eventually received wasn’t good enough.
It’s understood the 48-year-old had to have several teeth removed because of what a health expert described as “negligent” dental work.
A civil action due to be held at Peterhead Sheriff Court has been abandoned to allow extra time to work on a compensation plan.
A prison service spokesman confirmed yesterday they were now working on an out-of-court settlement.
Robertson, originally from Ayrshire, was jailed for life in 2003 for abusing a seven-year-old girl.
He met the child’s mother through an internet chatroom and wooed her by pretending to be a pilot, a businessman and a qualified psychologist.
But he then turned his attention to the youngster and took photographs of himself abusing the girl.
North East Scotland Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald said: “At the end of the day, anyone has the right to take legal action.
“But you have to ask why someone sent to prison for a serious crime is investing so much time and energy into making these claims.
“It doesn’t suggest he is very focused on his rehabilitation, which is what he was sent to prison for in the first place.
“The main point is that treatment of prisoners in jail has to be brought up to standard to avoid more complaints like this.”
Yesterday, the Record revealed how only 51 of 850 sex offenders behind bars in Scotland are taking part in rehabilitation courses.
This article is courtesy of the Daily Record.
Neil Robertson, who was dubbed a dangerous psychopath during his trial, successfully sued prison bosses in 2009 when he blamed Peterhead jail staff for failing to get him an NHS dentist.
Now the child molester is suing the Scottish Prison Service for £20,000, claiming the treatment he eventually received wasn’t good enough.
It’s understood the 48-year-old had to have several teeth removed because of what a health expert described as “negligent” dental work.
A civil action due to be held at Peterhead Sheriff Court has been abandoned to allow extra time to work on a compensation plan.
A prison service spokesman confirmed yesterday they were now working on an out-of-court settlement.
Robertson, originally from Ayrshire, was jailed for life in 2003 for abusing a seven-year-old girl.
He met the child’s mother through an internet chatroom and wooed her by pretending to be a pilot, a businessman and a qualified psychologist.
But he then turned his attention to the youngster and took photographs of himself abusing the girl.
North East Scotland Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald said: “At the end of the day, anyone has the right to take legal action.
“But you have to ask why someone sent to prison for a serious crime is investing so much time and energy into making these claims.
“It doesn’t suggest he is very focused on his rehabilitation, which is what he was sent to prison for in the first place.
“The main point is that treatment of prisoners in jail has to be brought up to standard to avoid more complaints like this.”
Yesterday, the Record revealed how only 51 of 850 sex offenders behind bars in Scotland are taking part in rehabilitation courses.
This article is courtesy of the Daily Record.
Monday, 25 August 2014
Paramedics used out-of-date morphine to give pain relief
The North East Ambulance Service has reported itself to the Care Quality Commission after discovering its paramedics had given patients 75 doses of out-of-date drugs, including morphine.
Bosses at the NEAS said the problem was discovered during a routine audit of drugs earlier this year.
Ambulance officials said no patients had been put at risk due to the drugs being out-of-date but acknowledged that their potency to provide pain relief may have been impaired.
By the time ambulance bosses had realised they had a problem – and taken action to stop it happening again - a total of 75 doses had been administered by 26 paramedics.
he medicines dispensed by paramedics which were found to be out-of-date included two forms of morphine and a form of diazepam known as Diazamul.
Morphine is used to relieve severe pain that can be caused by heart attack, injury, surgery or chronic disease such as cancer.
Diazepam is used as an anti-anxiety drug, a muscle relaxant and as an anti-convulsant.
In a statement to The Northern Echo the NEAS said: “During a routine audit by NEAS, a number of out-of-date controlled drugs were found to have been administered to patients. In total 75 doses had been administered by 26 paramedics.
“The specific medicines were Morphine, Oramorph oral suspension and Diazamuls. No patients were put at risk due to the drugs being out of date, though their potency to provide pain relief may have been less effective.
“The Care Quality Commission and Monitor – a health watchdog – are aware of the situation, along with our commissioners.
“Since the error came to light we have tightened-up our controlled medicines checking procedures.”
A spokeswoman for the Care Quality Commission said: “We can confirm we were alerted by the NEAS in April.
"We asked them for an action plan and after reviewing that plan we were reassured that the actions taken by the trust to mitigate the risk were robust.”
But the CQC said their inspectors would be returning to the NEAS to make a follow-up inspection of how the trust was keeping drugs secure, including controlled drugs.
This followed an earlier visit by CQC inspectors to the trust in February which found the NEAS non-compliant in the storage of medicines.
This article is courtesy of the Northern Echo.
Bosses at the NEAS said the problem was discovered during a routine audit of drugs earlier this year.
Ambulance officials said no patients had been put at risk due to the drugs being out-of-date but acknowledged that their potency to provide pain relief may have been impaired.
By the time ambulance bosses had realised they had a problem – and taken action to stop it happening again - a total of 75 doses had been administered by 26 paramedics.
he medicines dispensed by paramedics which were found to be out-of-date included two forms of morphine and a form of diazepam known as Diazamul.
Morphine is used to relieve severe pain that can be caused by heart attack, injury, surgery or chronic disease such as cancer.
Diazepam is used as an anti-anxiety drug, a muscle relaxant and as an anti-convulsant.
In a statement to The Northern Echo the NEAS said: “During a routine audit by NEAS, a number of out-of-date controlled drugs were found to have been administered to patients. In total 75 doses had been administered by 26 paramedics.
“The specific medicines were Morphine, Oramorph oral suspension and Diazamuls. No patients were put at risk due to the drugs being out of date, though their potency to provide pain relief may have been less effective.
“The Care Quality Commission and Monitor – a health watchdog – are aware of the situation, along with our commissioners.
“Since the error came to light we have tightened-up our controlled medicines checking procedures.”
A spokeswoman for the Care Quality Commission said: “We can confirm we were alerted by the NEAS in April.
"We asked them for an action plan and after reviewing that plan we were reassured that the actions taken by the trust to mitigate the risk were robust.”
But the CQC said their inspectors would be returning to the NEAS to make a follow-up inspection of how the trust was keeping drugs secure, including controlled drugs.
This followed an earlier visit by CQC inspectors to the trust in February which found the NEAS non-compliant in the storage of medicines.
This article is courtesy of the Northern Echo.
Friday, 22 August 2014
The battle against misdiagnosis
Still, after years of taking a back seat to problems such as medication and treatment errors, misdiagnosis is getting attention. In 2011 my research colleague in projects on misdiagnosis Mark Graber founded the nonprofit Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, which now holds an annual medical conference on diagnostic error. More recently, the Institute of Medicine, an influential branch of the National Academy of Sciences that advises Congress on health care, is preparing a comprehensive action plan and hosting its second major expert meeting on Thursday and Friday. In 2015 the IOM will issue a report on misdiagnosis.
Meantime, the U.S. health-care community can take steps to reduce the problem.
The first is to improve communication between physicians and patients. Patients tend to be the best source of information for making a diagnosis, but often essential doctor-patient interactions such as history and examination are rushed, leading to poor decisions. As new forms of diagnostic and information technologies are implemented, managing large amounts of data will become increasingly complex, and physicians could become more vulnerable to misdiagnosis.
This problem exists in large part because time pressures and paperwork often force physicians to spend more time struggling to get reimbursed than talking with patients. Extra hours spent pursuing a correct diagnosis are not compensated beyond the payment for the visit, an already small sum for primary-care physicians.
Patients can't solve this problem, but insurers can streamline administrative paperwork and re-examine the logic behind reimbursement policies. Hospital systems can help by providing high-tech decision support tools and encouraging physicians to collaborate on tough cases and learn from missed opportunities.
Metrics also need work. As the old business adage goes, you can't manage what you don't measure. Yet most health-care organizations aren't tracking misdiagnosis beyond malpractice claims. Doctors need mechanisms to provide and receive timely feedback on the quality and accuracy of our diagnoses, including better patient follow-up and test-result tracking systems.
Electronic health records will help eventually, but slow innovation in this area has frustrated many physicians. And most doctors still lack access to electronic patient data gathered by other physicians. Doctors can make a more informed diagnosis when they can see the disease progression or learn what other doctors have discovered about the patient.
Finally, patients must start keeping good records of each meeting with a doctor, bringing the information to subsequent medical appointments and following up with the physician if their condition doesn't improve. No news from the doctor is not necessarily good news.
There is much we don't understand about the burden, causes and prevention of misdiagnosis. The IOM report will spur progress, but health-care providers, patients, hospitals and payers can all help. The health outcomes of at least 12 million Americans each year depend on it.
This article is courtesy of The Wall Street Journal and was written by Dr. Singh, Chief of Health Policy, Quality and Informatics at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, and an associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine.
Meantime, the U.S. health-care community can take steps to reduce the problem.
The first is to improve communication between physicians and patients. Patients tend to be the best source of information for making a diagnosis, but often essential doctor-patient interactions such as history and examination are rushed, leading to poor decisions. As new forms of diagnostic and information technologies are implemented, managing large amounts of data will become increasingly complex, and physicians could become more vulnerable to misdiagnosis.
This problem exists in large part because time pressures and paperwork often force physicians to spend more time struggling to get reimbursed than talking with patients. Extra hours spent pursuing a correct diagnosis are not compensated beyond the payment for the visit, an already small sum for primary-care physicians.
Patients can't solve this problem, but insurers can streamline administrative paperwork and re-examine the logic behind reimbursement policies. Hospital systems can help by providing high-tech decision support tools and encouraging physicians to collaborate on tough cases and learn from missed opportunities.
Metrics also need work. As the old business adage goes, you can't manage what you don't measure. Yet most health-care organizations aren't tracking misdiagnosis beyond malpractice claims. Doctors need mechanisms to provide and receive timely feedback on the quality and accuracy of our diagnoses, including better patient follow-up and test-result tracking systems.
Electronic health records will help eventually, but slow innovation in this area has frustrated many physicians. And most doctors still lack access to electronic patient data gathered by other physicians. Doctors can make a more informed diagnosis when they can see the disease progression or learn what other doctors have discovered about the patient.
Finally, patients must start keeping good records of each meeting with a doctor, bringing the information to subsequent medical appointments and following up with the physician if their condition doesn't improve. No news from the doctor is not necessarily good news.
There is much we don't understand about the burden, causes and prevention of misdiagnosis. The IOM report will spur progress, but health-care providers, patients, hospitals and payers can all help. The health outcomes of at least 12 million Americans each year depend on it.
This article is courtesy of The Wall Street Journal and was written by Dr. Singh, Chief of Health Policy, Quality and Informatics at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, and an associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine.
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Leeds hospital blunders revealed in report
Doctor wrongly removed a woman’s kidney after mistaking it for an ectopic pregnancy, a new report on serious incidents at Leeds hospitals shows.
Two patients also received adrenaline overdoses, there was an outbreak of MRSA among new mums and staff failed to respond when a patient deteriorated, according to the document.
It details 16 serious incidents recorded by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in May and June, with 11 of these pressure ulcers.
The report, by chief medical officer Dr Yvette Oade, says there has been an increase since 2013 in the number of serious incidents.
She said: “Whilst this reflects our reporting and learning culture, this is also attributable to a decision that we took to report all category 3 pressure ulcers as serious incidents from January 2014.”
In another incident, a woman was taken to theatre for removal of a suspected ectopic pregnancy, where a foetus implants outside the womb and cannot survive.
Before the procedure, the surgeon did not review a previous scan which showed one of her kidneys was in her pelvis.
“During the procedure the surgeon identified a structure thought to be the ectopic pregnancy, and removed this,” the report said.
However that was then identified as a pelvic kidney. The woman was not found to have an ectopic pregnancy.
After the error, staff were reminded of the guidelines for treating the condition and there was a meeting about the incident.
In two cases, patients were given too much adrenaline – one who was given ten times the prescribed dose then lost vision in one eye. The sight loss was later found to have occurred at the time of the overdose.
In another incident, a patient on the Critical Care Unit had been prescribed adrenaline at a rate of 5mls per hour following surgery, but it was mistakenly given at 50mls an hour. They needed further surgery but later recovered.
A further incident happened when a patient with diabetes began to deteriorate and was supposed to be monitored every two hours, but this did not happen. The next morning they could not be woken and were treated, but there were delays.
The patient continued to deteriorate due to their underlying illness and died the next morning. A post mortem confirming the cause of death is awaited.
There was also an outbreak of MRSA infection of the skin of mothers who had been discharged from the post-natal ward at LGI. Apologies were given to those affected.
In all cases, the incidents were investigated and moves made to prevent them recurring.
This article is courtesy of the Yorkshire Evening Post.
Two patients also received adrenaline overdoses, there was an outbreak of MRSA among new mums and staff failed to respond when a patient deteriorated, according to the document.
It details 16 serious incidents recorded by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in May and June, with 11 of these pressure ulcers.
The report, by chief medical officer Dr Yvette Oade, says there has been an increase since 2013 in the number of serious incidents.
She said: “Whilst this reflects our reporting and learning culture, this is also attributable to a decision that we took to report all category 3 pressure ulcers as serious incidents from January 2014.”
In another incident, a woman was taken to theatre for removal of a suspected ectopic pregnancy, where a foetus implants outside the womb and cannot survive.
Before the procedure, the surgeon did not review a previous scan which showed one of her kidneys was in her pelvis.
“During the procedure the surgeon identified a structure thought to be the ectopic pregnancy, and removed this,” the report said.
However that was then identified as a pelvic kidney. The woman was not found to have an ectopic pregnancy.
After the error, staff were reminded of the guidelines for treating the condition and there was a meeting about the incident.
In two cases, patients were given too much adrenaline – one who was given ten times the prescribed dose then lost vision in one eye. The sight loss was later found to have occurred at the time of the overdose.
In another incident, a patient on the Critical Care Unit had been prescribed adrenaline at a rate of 5mls per hour following surgery, but it was mistakenly given at 50mls an hour. They needed further surgery but later recovered.
A further incident happened when a patient with diabetes began to deteriorate and was supposed to be monitored every two hours, but this did not happen. The next morning they could not be woken and were treated, but there were delays.
The patient continued to deteriorate due to their underlying illness and died the next morning. A post mortem confirming the cause of death is awaited.
There was also an outbreak of MRSA infection of the skin of mothers who had been discharged from the post-natal ward at LGI. Apologies were given to those affected.
In all cases, the incidents were investigated and moves made to prevent them recurring.
This article is courtesy of the Yorkshire Evening Post.
Monday, 18 August 2014
Wrong site surgeries remain top hospital mistake
The surgeon(s), anesthesiologist, scrub nurse, circulating nurse, the surgical techs, and residents stand in the surgical suite. Also in the room is a patient prepared for surgery. The team is going to amputate his lower left leg because he has complications from diabetes. Before performing the procedure, the surgical team forms a huddle to review the surgery that is before them and to ground themselves. When the surgery is completed, instead of the patient’s lower left leg being amputated the team amputated the patient’s lower right leg.
Though statistics vary widely, The Joint Commission, an organization which governs the accreditation of health care organizations, suggests that wrong site surgeries occur 40-60 times in the U.S. each week. Wrong site surgeries are considered to be sentinel events, unexpected occurrences involving psychological injury or serious physical injury or death . The Joint Commission requires sentinel events to be reported and investigated so that the root cause of the mistake can be determined. According to the governing body, breakdown in communication is the primary culprit for wrong site surgeries. After analysis, it has been found that 85 percent of wrong site surgeries occur because of inadequate planning. 72 percent have been attributed to defects in surgeons’ “time outs.” Surgeon “time outs” are breaks taken before a procedure begins, to ensure that all of the details regarding the forthcoming surgery are correct.
Most wrong site surgeries occur during orthopedic, urologic, and neuro-surgical procedures. Odds of wrong site surgeries increase when the surgery involves multiple procedures. For example, when a trauma patient has multiple fractures, surgical teams may make mistakes on which sites require operation.
“Around the country, surgical teams have adopted the practice of forming these huddles or time outs before surgeries,” said Sara Perkins, a Manager of Employee Health at a local hospital in Vancouver, Wash. Perkins, however, is not a surgical nurse. Speaking about the time out procedure her hospital utilizes, Perkins said, “The objective is to confirm that the patient before the team is going to receive the surgery that is needed. The time out leader explains how the surgery will go and questions are asked and answered before the first incision is made.”
Despite time outs, wrong site surgeries continue to occur throughout the nation’s operating rooms. Sometimes the time outs simply do not take place, as may be the case in a severely life-threatening trauma situation where minutes count in saving the patient’s life. Other times, distractions arise and make it difficult for the whole team to come together. The phone might ring. Previous procedures may go longer than expected, making some team members later to the surgical suite than would be optimal. Staff may be rushed, moving between procedures, so that not all team members are fully engaged in the time out.
In small hospitals that do not have multiple surgical teams, an emergent trauma can require team members to toggle between patients. Surgical suites are generally kept small and cool to facilitate a sterile environment. Exchanging team members after the patient has been prepped and draped has the potential of breaking the sterile environment and is discouraged; nevertheless, it sometimes happens. The new staff may not be fully briefed, unlike the team that was present during the pre-surgical timeout.
The Joint Commission requires healthcare to report them and investigate the root causes as to why each of these events have occurred. Medicaid’s decision to deny funding for procedures and care resulting from wrong site surgeries is fairly new. This effectively puts the financial burden of care for these patients back onto the shoulders of hospitals. Despite this further incentive to only perform surgeries on patients that are needed, wrong site surgeries are still one of the biggest mistakes that hospitals make.
A brochure published by The Joint Commission is listed in the “Sources” section at the end of this article. The brochure suggests that to help reduce risk of medical mistakes and wrong site surgeries, patients should consult with their healthcare provider before surgery, to make sure that they do not take any medication that will create ill effects during or after surgery. Also, the patient is advised to make sure that markings placed on their body before surgery accurately reflects the body part on which the surgery is to take place. The video below demonstrates the World Health Organization’s (WHO) protocol for conducting a pre-surgical time out. Team members identify themselves, their roles, and the procedure that is going to take place. This procedure has reduced the incidence of wrong site surgeries, though they continue to occur.
This article is courtesy of the Liberty Voice.
Though statistics vary widely, The Joint Commission, an organization which governs the accreditation of health care organizations, suggests that wrong site surgeries occur 40-60 times in the U.S. each week. Wrong site surgeries are considered to be sentinel events, unexpected occurrences involving psychological injury or serious physical injury or death . The Joint Commission requires sentinel events to be reported and investigated so that the root cause of the mistake can be determined. According to the governing body, breakdown in communication is the primary culprit for wrong site surgeries. After analysis, it has been found that 85 percent of wrong site surgeries occur because of inadequate planning. 72 percent have been attributed to defects in surgeons’ “time outs.” Surgeon “time outs” are breaks taken before a procedure begins, to ensure that all of the details regarding the forthcoming surgery are correct.
Most wrong site surgeries occur during orthopedic, urologic, and neuro-surgical procedures. Odds of wrong site surgeries increase when the surgery involves multiple procedures. For example, when a trauma patient has multiple fractures, surgical teams may make mistakes on which sites require operation.
“Around the country, surgical teams have adopted the practice of forming these huddles or time outs before surgeries,” said Sara Perkins, a Manager of Employee Health at a local hospital in Vancouver, Wash. Perkins, however, is not a surgical nurse. Speaking about the time out procedure her hospital utilizes, Perkins said, “The objective is to confirm that the patient before the team is going to receive the surgery that is needed. The time out leader explains how the surgery will go and questions are asked and answered before the first incision is made.”
Despite time outs, wrong site surgeries continue to occur throughout the nation’s operating rooms. Sometimes the time outs simply do not take place, as may be the case in a severely life-threatening trauma situation where minutes count in saving the patient’s life. Other times, distractions arise and make it difficult for the whole team to come together. The phone might ring. Previous procedures may go longer than expected, making some team members later to the surgical suite than would be optimal. Staff may be rushed, moving between procedures, so that not all team members are fully engaged in the time out.
In small hospitals that do not have multiple surgical teams, an emergent trauma can require team members to toggle between patients. Surgical suites are generally kept small and cool to facilitate a sterile environment. Exchanging team members after the patient has been prepped and draped has the potential of breaking the sterile environment and is discouraged; nevertheless, it sometimes happens. The new staff may not be fully briefed, unlike the team that was present during the pre-surgical timeout.
The Joint Commission requires healthcare to report them and investigate the root causes as to why each of these events have occurred. Medicaid’s decision to deny funding for procedures and care resulting from wrong site surgeries is fairly new. This effectively puts the financial burden of care for these patients back onto the shoulders of hospitals. Despite this further incentive to only perform surgeries on patients that are needed, wrong site surgeries are still one of the biggest mistakes that hospitals make.
A brochure published by The Joint Commission is listed in the “Sources” section at the end of this article. The brochure suggests that to help reduce risk of medical mistakes and wrong site surgeries, patients should consult with their healthcare provider before surgery, to make sure that they do not take any medication that will create ill effects during or after surgery. Also, the patient is advised to make sure that markings placed on their body before surgery accurately reflects the body part on which the surgery is to take place. The video below demonstrates the World Health Organization’s (WHO) protocol for conducting a pre-surgical time out. Team members identify themselves, their roles, and the procedure that is going to take place. This procedure has reduced the incidence of wrong site surgeries, though they continue to occur.
This article is courtesy of the Liberty Voice.
Friday, 15 August 2014
Solicitors blamed for rise in medical negligence claims
The NHS Litigation Authority’s (NHSLA) recent annual report’s statistics relating to the rising number and cost of medical negligence claims have made alarming headlines - roughly translated as ‘medical negligence claims up by 18% - personal injury solicitors to blame!’
As with most stories, the reality is rather less straightforward; yes, the number of medical negligence claims is up by 18% from 2012/13 – but numbers of claims have been steadily increasing, year on year, for the past 10 years. As for personal injury solicitors shouldering the blame – again the reality is not quite so black and white.
Why are medical negligence claims rising?
Since the civil litigation reforms in 2013, which had a radical effect on personal injury market, a number of personal injury solicitors have indeed moved into claimant medical negligence work, admittedly some less successfully than others. But for the NHSLA to place much of the blame for the increase in medical negligence claims at the feet of lawyers is unhelpful. Changes to the way in which lawyers can recoup their fees after 1 April 2013 led many to lodge claims before the deadline which almost certainly would have led to a spike in the number of claims being defended. Other reasons for the increase in the number of medical negligence claims are a growing awareness among patients, partially though the easy dissemination of information via social media, that if their medical treatment falls below an acceptable standard they may have recourse against the medical practitioner responsible; and the well-documented pressure under which many hospitals are currently labouring leading to an increase in clinical errors and mismanagement.
Medical negligence law is complex
Nonetheless, the NHSLA assertion that 44% of the claims it receives lack merit is a much more serious charge and does infer that a lack of procedural knowledge on the part of non-specialist lawyers may be behind this figure. It needs an experienced medical negligence lawyer to ascertain whether or not a claim has merit and if a lawyer new to this field of practice does not apply the rigorous tests required to assess eligibility then the chances of lodging an unmeritorious claim is high. There are strict protocols to be followed and any lawyer who fails to follow them correctly, and thus fails to achieve the right level of compensation for their client, can find themselves facing a professional negligence claim themselves.
In short …
Jeanette Whyman, Medical Negligence Solicitor with Wright Hassall comments "pursuing compensation claims for victims of medical negligence is important for two reasons. First, it enables those individuals to pay for the necessary support and rehabilitation they need; second, it ensures that hospitals and clinical practitioners tighten up their procedures to ensure such mistakes do not happen again. Lawyers acting for claimants in medical negligence cases need to be experienced in this area of law not only to ensure that the claim has merit but also that the most advantageous compensation terms are secured on behalf of their client. The NHSLA’s assertion that the rise in claims is down to the increase in the number of personal injury solicitors entering the medical negligence market is far too simplistic, not least as any lawyer operating outside their sphere of competence is in danger of facing a claim for professional negligence themselves. A more thoughtful analysis of the reasons behind the year on year increase is overdue"
As with most stories, the reality is rather less straightforward; yes, the number of medical negligence claims is up by 18% from 2012/13 – but numbers of claims have been steadily increasing, year on year, for the past 10 years. As for personal injury solicitors shouldering the blame – again the reality is not quite so black and white.
Why are medical negligence claims rising?
Since the civil litigation reforms in 2013, which had a radical effect on personal injury market, a number of personal injury solicitors have indeed moved into claimant medical negligence work, admittedly some less successfully than others. But for the NHSLA to place much of the blame for the increase in medical negligence claims at the feet of lawyers is unhelpful. Changes to the way in which lawyers can recoup their fees after 1 April 2013 led many to lodge claims before the deadline which almost certainly would have led to a spike in the number of claims being defended. Other reasons for the increase in the number of medical negligence claims are a growing awareness among patients, partially though the easy dissemination of information via social media, that if their medical treatment falls below an acceptable standard they may have recourse against the medical practitioner responsible; and the well-documented pressure under which many hospitals are currently labouring leading to an increase in clinical errors and mismanagement.
Medical negligence law is complex
Nonetheless, the NHSLA assertion that 44% of the claims it receives lack merit is a much more serious charge and does infer that a lack of procedural knowledge on the part of non-specialist lawyers may be behind this figure. It needs an experienced medical negligence lawyer to ascertain whether or not a claim has merit and if a lawyer new to this field of practice does not apply the rigorous tests required to assess eligibility then the chances of lodging an unmeritorious claim is high. There are strict protocols to be followed and any lawyer who fails to follow them correctly, and thus fails to achieve the right level of compensation for their client, can find themselves facing a professional negligence claim themselves.
In short …
Jeanette Whyman, Medical Negligence Solicitor with Wright Hassall comments "pursuing compensation claims for victims of medical negligence is important for two reasons. First, it enables those individuals to pay for the necessary support and rehabilitation they need; second, it ensures that hospitals and clinical practitioners tighten up their procedures to ensure such mistakes do not happen again. Lawyers acting for claimants in medical negligence cases need to be experienced in this area of law not only to ensure that the claim has merit but also that the most advantageous compensation terms are secured on behalf of their client. The NHSLA’s assertion that the rise in claims is down to the increase in the number of personal injury solicitors entering the medical negligence market is far too simplistic, not least as any lawyer operating outside their sphere of competence is in danger of facing a claim for professional negligence themselves. A more thoughtful analysis of the reasons behind the year on year increase is overdue"
Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Mother spent two years preparing to die after she was misdiagnosed with cancer
A mother has spoken of the 'absolute hell' she endured after being wrongly told for two years she had terminal cancer.
Denise Clark, 34, arranged her own funeral and wrote heartbreaking goodbye letters to her sons after she was told the disease would claim her life.
After being given the prognosis at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, she also spent £10,000 attending an alternative therapy clinic in Spain.
She hoped the treatment there would extend her life, giving her more time with her two young boys before she died.
But as the months passed and she continued to feel well, she became suspicious and eventually demanded another scan.
To her total shock, the results revealed the growth in her pelvis was not cancerous - but internal damage from previous cancer treatment she'd undergone.
Ms Clarke has now settled a claim for a high five-figure sum after she took action against NHS Grampian.
She said she hoped no-one else would ever endure the nightmare ordeal her family went through.
'I planned my funeral and wrote farewell notes to my boys. It was heartbreaking but I had to do it for my family. No one should have to do that if they don’t need to.
'Hearing them say it was a mistake was amazing - but it doesn’t give us back the two years of our lives that were made absolute hell.'
Ms Clarke's ordeal began in 2009 when she suffered bleeding, nine weeks into her pregnancy with son Luca, now four.
When she finally got an appointment for tests nearly six months later, in January 2010, she received the devastating news she had cervical cancer.
With the disease spreading, Luca was delivered at 33 weeks so Ms Clarke could start treatment as soon as possible.
She went on to beat the disease but in November 2011 she was told she had a huge, cancerous mass in her pelvis and there was nothing more doctors could do.
'They said I'd already had as much radiation as I could have in a lifetime,' she said.
'There was an option for some more chemo - which might buy me some time - but I wanted my boys to remember me how I was, and not rotting away on a couch.
'I was absolutely devastated. We just weren't expecting it at all.'
Desperate, she researched alternative treatments and booked herself into a special clinic in Spain to build her health up as much as she could.
She also began to plan for the future of her two sons, Harvey and Luca.
'I wrote them farewell letters to say how proud I was of them and told them not to be sad because of all the good times they had spent together.'
She even had family photographs taken to remind them of her.
'I wanted the boys to have fun times and lots of mum memories, like playing football together or having a barbecue. Nothing that cost a fortune.'
She added: 'I didn’t know if I was going to end up dying in a hospital, if I would be at home or how it would happen.'
Then after two years of agony, specialists revealed her recurring health problems were actually due to internal damage caused by high levels of radiation she'd received during her initial cancer treatment.
She said: 'The doctor was there with the test results and my mum burst out crying. I just started to laugh.
'Mum said "how can you laugh?", but it was out of relief,' says Ms Clarke, an oil firm operations manager.
'I got home and said to my son: 'Harvey, the doctors made a mistake, they are wrong". His little face just lit up and he was hugging me the hardest he has ever hugged me. He said he never wanted to let me go.'
She added: 'It's a massive relief they made a mistake and I'm OK - but that's two years of my life I'm never getting back.'
She also worries the misdiagnosis had forced her eldest son Harvey, now 10, to grow up too quickly.
'Even now he's still got worries in his head, he says he doesn't want to be without me and tells me not to leave him,' she said.
The misdiagnosis also led to her running up huge debts paying for alternative treatments and her marriage broke down due to the strain of her poor health.
During treatment, high doses of chemotherapy left her needing a blood transfusion and she suffered acute renal failure after medics unnecessarily inserted stents to maintain her kidney function.
Despite this, Ms Clarke added she has nothing but praise for many of the medical staff at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmity X-ray unit, but said she felt let down by NHS Grampian.
'It wasn't just one department that got it wrong, it was multiple departments. They made mistakes time and time again,' she added. Going through something like this gives you clarity on so much. All I want now is to see my boys grow up, and watch my babies become the men I know they will be.'
NHS Grampian refused to comment on the case, adding that it was a confidential matter.
This article is courtesy of the Daily Mail.
Denise Clark, 34, arranged her own funeral and wrote heartbreaking goodbye letters to her sons after she was told the disease would claim her life.
After being given the prognosis at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, she also spent £10,000 attending an alternative therapy clinic in Spain.
She hoped the treatment there would extend her life, giving her more time with her two young boys before she died.
But as the months passed and she continued to feel well, she became suspicious and eventually demanded another scan.
To her total shock, the results revealed the growth in her pelvis was not cancerous - but internal damage from previous cancer treatment she'd undergone.
Ms Clarke has now settled a claim for a high five-figure sum after she took action against NHS Grampian.
She said she hoped no-one else would ever endure the nightmare ordeal her family went through.
'I planned my funeral and wrote farewell notes to my boys. It was heartbreaking but I had to do it for my family. No one should have to do that if they don’t need to.
'Hearing them say it was a mistake was amazing - but it doesn’t give us back the two years of our lives that were made absolute hell.'
Ms Clarke's ordeal began in 2009 when she suffered bleeding, nine weeks into her pregnancy with son Luca, now four.
When she finally got an appointment for tests nearly six months later, in January 2010, she received the devastating news she had cervical cancer.
With the disease spreading, Luca was delivered at 33 weeks so Ms Clarke could start treatment as soon as possible.
She went on to beat the disease but in November 2011 she was told she had a huge, cancerous mass in her pelvis and there was nothing more doctors could do.
'They said I'd already had as much radiation as I could have in a lifetime,' she said.
'There was an option for some more chemo - which might buy me some time - but I wanted my boys to remember me how I was, and not rotting away on a couch.
'I was absolutely devastated. We just weren't expecting it at all.'
Desperate, she researched alternative treatments and booked herself into a special clinic in Spain to build her health up as much as she could.
She also began to plan for the future of her two sons, Harvey and Luca.
'I wrote them farewell letters to say how proud I was of them and told them not to be sad because of all the good times they had spent together.'
She even had family photographs taken to remind them of her.
'I wanted the boys to have fun times and lots of mum memories, like playing football together or having a barbecue. Nothing that cost a fortune.'
She added: 'I didn’t know if I was going to end up dying in a hospital, if I would be at home or how it would happen.'
Then after two years of agony, specialists revealed her recurring health problems were actually due to internal damage caused by high levels of radiation she'd received during her initial cancer treatment.
She said: 'The doctor was there with the test results and my mum burst out crying. I just started to laugh.
'Mum said "how can you laugh?", but it was out of relief,' says Ms Clarke, an oil firm operations manager.
'I got home and said to my son: 'Harvey, the doctors made a mistake, they are wrong". His little face just lit up and he was hugging me the hardest he has ever hugged me. He said he never wanted to let me go.'
She added: 'It's a massive relief they made a mistake and I'm OK - but that's two years of my life I'm never getting back.'
She also worries the misdiagnosis had forced her eldest son Harvey, now 10, to grow up too quickly.
'Even now he's still got worries in his head, he says he doesn't want to be without me and tells me not to leave him,' she said.
The misdiagnosis also led to her running up huge debts paying for alternative treatments and her marriage broke down due to the strain of her poor health.
During treatment, high doses of chemotherapy left her needing a blood transfusion and she suffered acute renal failure after medics unnecessarily inserted stents to maintain her kidney function.
Despite this, Ms Clarke added she has nothing but praise for many of the medical staff at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmity X-ray unit, but said she felt let down by NHS Grampian.
'It wasn't just one department that got it wrong, it was multiple departments. They made mistakes time and time again,' she added. Going through something like this gives you clarity on so much. All I want now is to see my boys grow up, and watch my babies become the men I know they will be.'
NHS Grampian refused to comment on the case, adding that it was a confidential matter.
This article is courtesy of the Daily Mail.
Monday, 11 August 2014
Teen twin awarded £3.9m compensation over brain damage at birth
A twin who was left brain damaged due to complications during birth at Hemel Hempstead Hospital has been awarded a compensation package worth £3.9m after settling her case against a health trust.
Rachel Hartley and her twin brother Thomas were born prematurely at Hemel Hospital 14 years ago in 1999. Both suffered cerebral palsy as a result of being born early.
It was the twins’ case that staff at the hospital were negligent in failing to realise that their mother was in premature labour when she attended the hospital.
West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust denied liability but agreed to settle the case with each twin.
Today the Royal Courts of Justice approved an award for Rachel of approximately £3.9m, comprised of a lump sum and annual payments to be made for the remainder of her life.
The money will be held in a trust so Rachel can manage her own affairs when she is old enough.
Rachel’s award follows the award in March 2011 of a £2m lump sum to her brother Thomas in settlement of his case.
The twins, now 14 and attending Longdean School, were represented by clinical negligence specialist solicitor Sue Jarvis of BL Claims Solicitors.
Sue said: “This was a complicated case but the settlement today is an excellent one in the circumstances, where liability was never admitted.
“The twins’ family has cared for Rachel and Thomas lovingly over the years but they brought the claim because of concerns about the provision of the degree of care and attention that the twins will need for the rest of their lives.
“Each twin will require care, aids and appliances as they go through their lives and I am pleased to have helped them reach settlements that will ensure they are provided for.”
The twins’ mother attended Hemel Hempstead Hospital on October 25, 1999 complaining of stomach pains.
It was the twins’ case that staff should have spotted that she was in premature labour and given drugs to preserve the pregnancy long enough so that steroids could be given to strengthen the babies’ lungs before birth.
Both Thomas and Rachel suffered brain damage at birth, causing severe spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Both need wheelchairs, have some learning difficulties and have trouble with fine motor hand movements.
It was their case that if appropriate treatment had been given then Rachel would have suffered no brain damage and most of Thomas’ damage would have been avoided.
The Trust argued that the treatment given to Mrs Hartley was reasonable and that even if they had realised she was in labour and given drugs, the twins would still have suffered disability.
In a statement, the twins’ parents said: “We’re delighted to have reached this settlement which will help secure the future for Rachel. It means we are reassured that she will be given the care she needs in the future.
“We’d like to thank Sue Jarvis of BL Claims Solicitors who has been a fantastic support to us over the 12 years since we started this case.”
This article is courtesy of the Hemel Today.
Rachel Hartley and her twin brother Thomas were born prematurely at Hemel Hospital 14 years ago in 1999. Both suffered cerebral palsy as a result of being born early.
It was the twins’ case that staff at the hospital were negligent in failing to realise that their mother was in premature labour when she attended the hospital.
West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust denied liability but agreed to settle the case with each twin.
Today the Royal Courts of Justice approved an award for Rachel of approximately £3.9m, comprised of a lump sum and annual payments to be made for the remainder of her life.
The money will be held in a trust so Rachel can manage her own affairs when she is old enough.
Rachel’s award follows the award in March 2011 of a £2m lump sum to her brother Thomas in settlement of his case.
The twins, now 14 and attending Longdean School, were represented by clinical negligence specialist solicitor Sue Jarvis of BL Claims Solicitors.
Sue said: “This was a complicated case but the settlement today is an excellent one in the circumstances, where liability was never admitted.
“The twins’ family has cared for Rachel and Thomas lovingly over the years but they brought the claim because of concerns about the provision of the degree of care and attention that the twins will need for the rest of their lives.
“Each twin will require care, aids and appliances as they go through their lives and I am pleased to have helped them reach settlements that will ensure they are provided for.”
The twins’ mother attended Hemel Hempstead Hospital on October 25, 1999 complaining of stomach pains.
It was the twins’ case that staff should have spotted that she was in premature labour and given drugs to preserve the pregnancy long enough so that steroids could be given to strengthen the babies’ lungs before birth.
Both Thomas and Rachel suffered brain damage at birth, causing severe spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Both need wheelchairs, have some learning difficulties and have trouble with fine motor hand movements.
It was their case that if appropriate treatment had been given then Rachel would have suffered no brain damage and most of Thomas’ damage would have been avoided.
The Trust argued that the treatment given to Mrs Hartley was reasonable and that even if they had realised she was in labour and given drugs, the twins would still have suffered disability.
In a statement, the twins’ parents said: “We’re delighted to have reached this settlement which will help secure the future for Rachel. It means we are reassured that she will be given the care she needs in the future.
“We’d like to thank Sue Jarvis of BL Claims Solicitors who has been a fantastic support to us over the 12 years since we started this case.”
This article is courtesy of the Hemel Today.
Friday, 8 August 2014
Bristol dentist pulled out wrong tooth in medical blunder!
A dentist pulled out the wrong tooth, while doctors operated on the incorrect area of a patient's hand in a series of errors at the trust which runs the Bristol Royal Infirmary. The University Hospitals of Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, which runs all of the city centre hospitals, has recorded two 'never events' since April.
These are serious blunders which should not occur if all proper procedures are followed, the trust said.
The first involved one patient, who was having multiple teeth removed, enduring an extra tooth at the back of their mouth being taken out unnecessarily. The patient was told about the mistake and offered to have the tooth re-implanted, but this was turned down.
A trust spokesman said: "During April and May, two events took place in our hospitals. One event took place in April and involved "wrong site surgery".
"During a multiple dental extraction, an additional tooth at the back of the mouth was removed instead of the adjacent one." He said a surgical safety checklist was completed prior to the treatment and the appropriate x-rays were on display.
He added: "The patient was informed of the error as soon as it was identified and an apology was given. Remedial treatment in the form of re-implanting the tooth was offered, but declined."
The following month another event was recorded at the same trust. This involved a patient having the ligament in their hands cut when they were supposed to be having surgery to release tension in their tendon.
A trust spokesman said: "A second 'wrong site surgery' event occurred in May, when an incorrect procedure was performed on a day- case patient. The patient was correctly identified and the correct hand operated on.
"However, the surgeon performed a carpal tunnel release instead of a De Quervain's release, a similar procedure. The patient was informed of the error as soon as it was identified and an apology was given. The patient elected to have the correct procedure the same day and it was performed uneventfully."
He added: "As we do with all serious incidents, the trust conducted a root cause analysis into both events to establish what happened, identify any learning and make recommendations for improvement actions."
Between April to May there were no similar events recorded at either North Bristol Trust, which runs Southmead Hospital, or at Weston Area Health NHS Trust, which run Weston-super-Mare's hospital.
This article is courtesy of the Bristol Post.
These are serious blunders which should not occur if all proper procedures are followed, the trust said.
The first involved one patient, who was having multiple teeth removed, enduring an extra tooth at the back of their mouth being taken out unnecessarily. The patient was told about the mistake and offered to have the tooth re-implanted, but this was turned down.
A trust spokesman said: "During April and May, two events took place in our hospitals. One event took place in April and involved "wrong site surgery".
"During a multiple dental extraction, an additional tooth at the back of the mouth was removed instead of the adjacent one." He said a surgical safety checklist was completed prior to the treatment and the appropriate x-rays were on display.
He added: "The patient was informed of the error as soon as it was identified and an apology was given. Remedial treatment in the form of re-implanting the tooth was offered, but declined."
The following month another event was recorded at the same trust. This involved a patient having the ligament in their hands cut when they were supposed to be having surgery to release tension in their tendon.
A trust spokesman said: "A second 'wrong site surgery' event occurred in May, when an incorrect procedure was performed on a day- case patient. The patient was correctly identified and the correct hand operated on.
"However, the surgeon performed a carpal tunnel release instead of a De Quervain's release, a similar procedure. The patient was informed of the error as soon as it was identified and an apology was given. The patient elected to have the correct procedure the same day and it was performed uneventfully."
He added: "As we do with all serious incidents, the trust conducted a root cause analysis into both events to establish what happened, identify any learning and make recommendations for improvement actions."
Between April to May there were no similar events recorded at either North Bristol Trust, which runs Southmead Hospital, or at Weston Area Health NHS Trust, which run Weston-super-Mare's hospital.
This article is courtesy of the Bristol Post.
Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Fears after NHS surgery mistakes
At least 35 patients have had the wrong part of their body operated on in the past five years, new figures reveal.
Errors include one patient having a needle thrust into the wrong side of their chest during an emergency procedure and several patients having the wrong part of their head operated on.
Patients' groups have hit out at the string of mistakes, saying it was both a tragedy and frightening such mistakes could happen.
Patients are visited by consultant surgeons and anaesthetists before operations and it is standard practice for medics to "draw" on the operation site before the patient goes into theatre.
The details of botched surgeries follow the revelation last month that the Scottish NHS spent more than £186 million on compensation in the past five years.
Four out of Scotland's 14 health boards admitted to operating on the wrong body parts. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde admitted there had been 12 occasions in which staff had mistakenly operated on the wrong part of the body. Three involved operations on the head.
A document, released through the Freedom of Information Act, stated the patient's head had been "shaved, prepped, incision made and with the skin open a small amount of dissection was carried out on right side" when it should have been on the left.
NHS Lanarkshire said there had been two occasions when their staff had carried out procedures on the wrong part of the body. Both involved patients being treated for "squints" and they were given "injections to the wrong muscle" in their eye.
NHS Tayside revealed it had 20 incidents in which staff had incorrectly carried out operations or procedures on the wrong part of their body.
NHS Lothian admitted to "five or fewer" errors but refused to give details, claiming patients could be identified. Fife said it did not hold the details. The other boards said there had been no mistakes.
Jean Turner, executive director of Scotland Patients Association said: "The tragedy is that these are not just statistics, but people this has happened to."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "While any surgical error is regrettable, it is important to put these figures in context as they reflect a tiny number of the 1.2 million procedures carried out safely each year.
"We have witnessed a 23 per cent reduction in surgical mortality since 2008, have implemented the World Health Organisation surgical checklist and are committed to further improvements."
This article is courtesy of the Herald Scotland.
Errors include one patient having a needle thrust into the wrong side of their chest during an emergency procedure and several patients having the wrong part of their head operated on.
Patients' groups have hit out at the string of mistakes, saying it was both a tragedy and frightening such mistakes could happen.
Patients are visited by consultant surgeons and anaesthetists before operations and it is standard practice for medics to "draw" on the operation site before the patient goes into theatre.
The details of botched surgeries follow the revelation last month that the Scottish NHS spent more than £186 million on compensation in the past five years.
Four out of Scotland's 14 health boards admitted to operating on the wrong body parts. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde admitted there had been 12 occasions in which staff had mistakenly operated on the wrong part of the body. Three involved operations on the head.
A document, released through the Freedom of Information Act, stated the patient's head had been "shaved, prepped, incision made and with the skin open a small amount of dissection was carried out on right side" when it should have been on the left.
NHS Lanarkshire said there had been two occasions when their staff had carried out procedures on the wrong part of the body. Both involved patients being treated for "squints" and they were given "injections to the wrong muscle" in their eye.
NHS Tayside revealed it had 20 incidents in which staff had incorrectly carried out operations or procedures on the wrong part of their body.
NHS Lothian admitted to "five or fewer" errors but refused to give details, claiming patients could be identified. Fife said it did not hold the details. The other boards said there had been no mistakes.
Jean Turner, executive director of Scotland Patients Association said: "The tragedy is that these are not just statistics, but people this has happened to."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "While any surgical error is regrettable, it is important to put these figures in context as they reflect a tiny number of the 1.2 million procedures carried out safely each year.
"We have witnessed a 23 per cent reduction in surgical mortality since 2008, have implemented the World Health Organisation surgical checklist and are committed to further improvements."
This article is courtesy of the Herald Scotland.
Monday, 4 August 2014
The Irish State is facing €1 billion bill for medical negligence claims
The State is facing a potential financial liability of more than €1 billion to deal with medical negligence claims in public hospitals and HSE facilities.
Official Department of Health briefing material maintains that the number of clinical claims under active management by the State Claims Agency increased from 1,792 at the end of 2012 to 3,061 at the end of 2013.
“The estimated potential liability has similarly risen over the same period from €642 million to €1,037 million.”
The documents state that increased costs are also due to the fact that the courts will not agree to structured periodic payment orders until legislation is introduced – through the Department of Justice – for this purpose.
The State Claims Agency manages the State’s clinical indemnity scheme, which provides cover in respect of clinical negligence claims occurring in public hospitals and HSE facilities around the country.
Birth-related claims
The agency meets the cost of awards and expenses and is subsequently reimbursed from the HSE budget.
While 20 per cent of claims relate to obstetrics, this area represents 55 per cent of estimated liability due to high settlement costs associated with cerebral palsy and other serious birth-related claims.
The Department of Health briefing documents, drawn up in June and seen by The Irish Times, state that independent actuarial projections for the year forecast that the cost of settling clinical indemnity claims overall in 2014 will be in the region of €200 million.
The department’s documents also suggest that the bill for dealing with clinical negligence cases will get higher in the years ahead.
“The cost of clinical indemnity scheme claims will continue to rise over the next number of years.
“This is in line with the actuarial prediction that the claims portfolio is still immature and will not reach steady state, in terms of yearly cost, for a number of years.”
This article is courtesy of the Irish Times.
Official Department of Health briefing material maintains that the number of clinical claims under active management by the State Claims Agency increased from 1,792 at the end of 2012 to 3,061 at the end of 2013.
“The estimated potential liability has similarly risen over the same period from €642 million to €1,037 million.”
The documents state that increased costs are also due to the fact that the courts will not agree to structured periodic payment orders until legislation is introduced – through the Department of Justice – for this purpose.
The State Claims Agency manages the State’s clinical indemnity scheme, which provides cover in respect of clinical negligence claims occurring in public hospitals and HSE facilities around the country.
Birth-related claims
The agency meets the cost of awards and expenses and is subsequently reimbursed from the HSE budget.
While 20 per cent of claims relate to obstetrics, this area represents 55 per cent of estimated liability due to high settlement costs associated with cerebral palsy and other serious birth-related claims.
The Department of Health briefing documents, drawn up in June and seen by The Irish Times, state that independent actuarial projections for the year forecast that the cost of settling clinical indemnity claims overall in 2014 will be in the region of €200 million.
The department’s documents also suggest that the bill for dealing with clinical negligence cases will get higher in the years ahead.
“The cost of clinical indemnity scheme claims will continue to rise over the next number of years.
“This is in line with the actuarial prediction that the claims portfolio is still immature and will not reach steady state, in terms of yearly cost, for a number of years.”
This article is courtesy of the Irish Times.
Friday, 1 August 2014
Medical innovation under the microscope - the Saatchi Bill
Following the death of his wife in 2011 from ovarian cancer, Lord Saatchi introduced a Bill which would allow doctors to offer patients suffering from diseases or conditions that were not responding to conventional medicine, innovative treatments that had not necessarily been subjected to rigorous testing.
The underlying motivation for the Bill is the belief that many doctors are deterred from trying new procedures for fear of being sued for medical negligence. The arguments for and against the Medical Innovation Bill, more commonly referred to as the Saatchi Bill, are heated: proponents argue that doctors’ hands are tied by guidelines which are too prescriptive – even when tried and tested treatments are no longer working; while opponents believe that the current law does not stop doctors trying new procedures but does, more importantly, protect patients against irresponsible experimentation.
The Saatchi Bill – what it proposes
Jeanette Whyman, Head of Medical Negligence with Wright Hassall comments “On the face of it, it is perfectly understandable why Lord Saatchi has proposed this Bill. He lost his wife in painful circumstances and is strongly of the opinion that the medical profession is shackled by the fear of litigation making doctors unwilling to try remedies that might help in individual cases”. The Bill has proposed safeguards to ensure that the "doctor who acts alone and in a reckless way" is exposed as a maverick (that word plus the use of ‘quackery’ is used a great deal by both sides and reflects the emotional undertone of the debate). One such safeguard is that any doctor proposing an innovative treatment must seek the agreement of a multi-disciplinary team with expertise in the relevant area and his / her Responsible Officer in order to proceed. By doing this, supporters of the Bill argue, doctors are applying the principle of the Bolam test (whereby they must, if accused of medical negligence, establish that they acted as any other responsible medical professional would have done under similar circumstances) in advance of the treatment rather than retrospectively. Lord Woolf, himself a supporter of the Bill, believes that it is not a ‘charter for risky experimentation’ but a genuine desire to improve the treatment for those for whom all else has failed.
Do we need the Saatchi Bill?
According to a long list of eminent organisations and individuals, the answer is no, or at least not in its current format. The Medical Defence Union (MDU), the NHS Litigation Authority, the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Robert Francis QC and Cancer Research UK, among many others, all refuted suggestions that fear of litigation was holding the medical profession back from innovating. Indeed, many of the comments received from the public consultation suggested that this Bill would actually protect maverick doctors who, having harmed a patient by trying an untested treatment, could avoid a claim for medical negligence by retreating behind this Bill which had essentially allowed the experimentation. Opponents of the Bill argue that the current law is able to differentiate between responsible medical practice and incompetence - which is not the same thing as stifling innovation - thus making further legislation unnecessary. They also make the point that many patients who are likely to consent to a new treatment are often desperate and thus vulnerable to persuasion by doctors willing ignore responsible medical opinion. Claims by supporters that it will help to further research into rarer cancers and diseases which, they maintain, are currently overlooked by larger research projects are also challenged by opponents. Cancer Research UK notes that research into effective treatments has to be scientifically robust if it is to benefit the majority. Experimentation on individuals will be of limited benefit although a project team at Oxford University has offered to store data from individual cases enabling them to map trends.
In short
The government, while supporting this Bill in principle, has acknowledged its shortcomings and has committed to incorporating amendments to overcome objections raised by opponents. However, judging by a recent announcement by Dan Poulter when he outlined the likely changes, the proposed legislation will offer nothing more than the current law. I think what this debate has helpfully highlighted is that doctors who do their job responsibly do not fear medical negligence claims and are not dissuaded from pursuing innovative treatments if they genuinely feel they will make a difference to the patient. This Bill, if it becomes law, could end up protecting doctors who actively harm patients by going out on a limb to carry out untried and untested remedies – which is the opposite effect of what it is trying to achieve. The Bill has now reached the Committee stage where it will be examined in detail against the backdrop of responses received from the public consultation which closed in April.
This article is courtesy of Jeanette Whyman, who heads up the team of Medical Negligence Solicitors with Wright Hassall.
The underlying motivation for the Bill is the belief that many doctors are deterred from trying new procedures for fear of being sued for medical negligence. The arguments for and against the Medical Innovation Bill, more commonly referred to as the Saatchi Bill, are heated: proponents argue that doctors’ hands are tied by guidelines which are too prescriptive – even when tried and tested treatments are no longer working; while opponents believe that the current law does not stop doctors trying new procedures but does, more importantly, protect patients against irresponsible experimentation.
The Saatchi Bill – what it proposes
Jeanette Whyman, Head of Medical Negligence with Wright Hassall comments “On the face of it, it is perfectly understandable why Lord Saatchi has proposed this Bill. He lost his wife in painful circumstances and is strongly of the opinion that the medical profession is shackled by the fear of litigation making doctors unwilling to try remedies that might help in individual cases”. The Bill has proposed safeguards to ensure that the "doctor who acts alone and in a reckless way" is exposed as a maverick (that word plus the use of ‘quackery’ is used a great deal by both sides and reflects the emotional undertone of the debate). One such safeguard is that any doctor proposing an innovative treatment must seek the agreement of a multi-disciplinary team with expertise in the relevant area and his / her Responsible Officer in order to proceed. By doing this, supporters of the Bill argue, doctors are applying the principle of the Bolam test (whereby they must, if accused of medical negligence, establish that they acted as any other responsible medical professional would have done under similar circumstances) in advance of the treatment rather than retrospectively. Lord Woolf, himself a supporter of the Bill, believes that it is not a ‘charter for risky experimentation’ but a genuine desire to improve the treatment for those for whom all else has failed.
Do we need the Saatchi Bill?
According to a long list of eminent organisations and individuals, the answer is no, or at least not in its current format. The Medical Defence Union (MDU), the NHS Litigation Authority, the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Robert Francis QC and Cancer Research UK, among many others, all refuted suggestions that fear of litigation was holding the medical profession back from innovating. Indeed, many of the comments received from the public consultation suggested that this Bill would actually protect maverick doctors who, having harmed a patient by trying an untested treatment, could avoid a claim for medical negligence by retreating behind this Bill which had essentially allowed the experimentation. Opponents of the Bill argue that the current law is able to differentiate between responsible medical practice and incompetence - which is not the same thing as stifling innovation - thus making further legislation unnecessary. They also make the point that many patients who are likely to consent to a new treatment are often desperate and thus vulnerable to persuasion by doctors willing ignore responsible medical opinion. Claims by supporters that it will help to further research into rarer cancers and diseases which, they maintain, are currently overlooked by larger research projects are also challenged by opponents. Cancer Research UK notes that research into effective treatments has to be scientifically robust if it is to benefit the majority. Experimentation on individuals will be of limited benefit although a project team at Oxford University has offered to store data from individual cases enabling them to map trends.
In short
The government, while supporting this Bill in principle, has acknowledged its shortcomings and has committed to incorporating amendments to overcome objections raised by opponents. However, judging by a recent announcement by Dan Poulter when he outlined the likely changes, the proposed legislation will offer nothing more than the current law. I think what this debate has helpfully highlighted is that doctors who do their job responsibly do not fear medical negligence claims and are not dissuaded from pursuing innovative treatments if they genuinely feel they will make a difference to the patient. This Bill, if it becomes law, could end up protecting doctors who actively harm patients by going out on a limb to carry out untried and untested remedies – which is the opposite effect of what it is trying to achieve. The Bill has now reached the Committee stage where it will be examined in detail against the backdrop of responses received from the public consultation which closed in April.
This article is courtesy of Jeanette Whyman, who heads up the team of Medical Negligence Solicitors with Wright Hassall.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)