24 novembre 2022

Nhs Legal Cases

Posted by under: Non classé .

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for analyzing medical negligence markets from an animal welfare perspective. The Company includes health care providers (individuals and organizations) and medical negligence stakeholders (collectively, the « Market »). A failure of the medical care market occurs, manifests itself in harm to people seeking care (left side of the graph) and causes negative externalities in the form of negative consequences for third parties. Harm stems from information asymmetries between patients and providers, and in the realm of medical negligence, patients` understanding of whether harm has occurred or not is another informational asymmetry that predicts continued legal action against a provider. Two sets of potential unavoidable and avoidable evidence errors are presented, which are used to inform quantum calculations. These carry a risk of bias in both the calculation of short-term damage and long-term well-being outcomes, some of which can be corrected. As stated in our framework, based on a probability of more than 50% that a supplier`s act was negligent and caused actionable damages, it is the elements of clinical negligence investigations that inform the quanta of damages. If a court decides that the probability of negligence is less than 50%, the quantum is zero. Conversely, if a court decides that this probability is greater than 50%, the claimant will receive compensation. The impact of the chosen settlements on society may lead to an average long-term gain or loss; However, this has not been measured systematically and there is no central repository of data to estimate these impacts. The conceptual framework facilitates our hypothesis that avoidable failures in claims cases characterized as normative deviations from scientific standards lead to suboptimal societal outcomes, i.e., a net loss to society.

The first recommendation is that expert evidence be assessed using the now generally available ecosystem-based management tools (Howick et al., reference Howick, Chalmers, Glasziou, Greenhalgh, Heneghan, Liberati, Moschetti, Phillips and Thornton 2011). This is a standard requirement for all evidence used in the NHS, exemplified by the scientific peer review process or that of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); However, this standard is rarely applied to claims. The use of OCEBM methodologies to assess claims is in line with the NHS Quality of Care Principle (Darzi, reference Darzi2008), and therefore wider implementation of these standards by stakeholders suffering from medical negligence is undisputed. The NHS in England is facing the payment of £4.3 billion in legal fees to settle outstanding claims for clinical negligence, the BBC has learned from a freedom of information inquiry. The plans would only affect the legal fees plaintiffs and their lawyers can claim after a successful lawsuit, not the amount of compensation patients would receive. Expert testimony was measured by combining the number of citations cited with a code indicating the study plan(s) of the cited papers. Citations refer to published or unpublished evidence from bibliographic sources that influence the expert`s arguments. Quality of evidence was calculated as the total score for each case, which was obtained by rating the cited articles on a scale of one to ten (highest quality) and summing these scores. The scale was chosen because it is consistent with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) ten levels of evidence (Ball et al., Reference Ball, Sackett, Phillips, Haynes and Straus2009) and provides an informal ordinal scale to measure risk of bias. A score of one was assigned for Level 5 evidence and ten for Level 1a proof.

These assessments were linked to any action for negligence and, in the absence of citations, the expert opinions themselves received a score of one for each report attached to a claim. The experts` testimony was evaluated in this way because it represents a level of evidence that informs the case. A form of numerical analysis was chosen because a qualitative analysis of these cases, which would only be valuable if specific evidence were described in relation to certain elements of a case, poses a risk to patient confidentiality. Thirty-six years of care and 233 events in the care pathway were identified among the 15 cases. The median duration of care in the studies was five years (range: less than 1 month to more than 8 years) and the median number of discrete events in the identified pathway was 12 (range: 8-39). The median number of vendor organizations involved in cases was 3 (range 2 to 8), and most errors were primarily commission errors (six out of 15 cases). Four out of 15 cases were committed for omissions; Three out of 15 cases were due to communication errors; Contextual and diagnostic errors each accounted for one in 15 cases. The diagnostic error was a secondary error in four out of 15 cases and a secondary error in one case. The case series was created using damage data that we recommend other trusts and NHS stakeholders prepare and analyse regularly.

These teams should be responsible for developing and updating these datasets. The resource required to generate these datasets is not negligible, but once designed, the data can be used to create organizational changes that benefit all stakeholders. While the relatively small sample size of our study does not provide generalizable results, it initiates research and regulatory processes to predict and optimize medico-legal outcomes and reduce their costs to organizations. In the medium to long term, and from the perspective of the broader system, the pooling of these samples should show the extent of bias in clinical negligence claims at the national level. A larger sample can provide regulators with representative front-line data to accelerate solution deployment. Therefore, our fifth recommendation is to develop a national registry filled with observations similar to those of our research. Longitudinal data with representative samples will facilitate the provision of cost-effective solutions to the burden of negligence claims. In a way, we mirror the main recommendation made 20 years ago in Towse and Danzon`s analysis (reference Towse and Danzon1999), which called for a database of damage in the NHS.

We recommend the inclusion in the national dataset of contemporary variables indicating the scientific quality of forensic processes. Solutions are easier to identify when causes and variations on the front line are known, and these are currently largely ignored. Detailed patient-level information is not reported and approval of provider-level information has been granted by our NHS organisation. The following clinical variables were collected by the lead author: the year in which the claim was made, the main specialty against which the claim was made, the number of provider organisations involved, the number of days between admission and discharge in which alleged negligence occurred (expressed categorically and not continuously), the number of events in the causal chain that caused damage and the nature of the damage caused. The number of expert testimonies and bibliographic references leading to claims were documented (Table 1). « We now provide higher compensation than almost anywhere else in the world. What we need is a fundamental change in the legal system. This system funds the vast majority of claims and legal fees. Instead of a system of delays and refusals that frustrate grieving families and terrorize doctors while lawyers try to blame someone personally, the committee proposes a system closer to that used in New Zealand and Scandinavia. An independent administrative body would investigate a patient`s case to determine whether the harm caused was preventable and, if so, to promptly determine fair compensation within six months. The priority would be openness and learning from mistakes to protect future patients. Not having to find fault makes it easier for patients to get compensation, but the payment would be much lower.

Some warn that this reduction in the burden of proof would encourage a flood of claims, but New Zealand found that a similar system halved the amounts paid. There would still be remedies, but the courts would apply the same compensation tables. Countries that apply a similar system find few cases that end up in court. The committee heard from parents who had dragged themselves through years of litigation, only to acknowledge that a mistake had been made. One mother said, « The sad truth is that I received compensation. All my legal fees were paid, but I felt devastated. A quick fix with a hospital open to everything that happened would have saved him years of torment. The proposals would align court costs more closely with the level of compensation awarded for lower-value claims.

Comments are closed.

Liens rapides