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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll