NHS Clinical Negligence Reforms - APIL Outline Their Views

Back in August 2001 the Chief Medical Officer set out plans for the reform of medical negligence compensation, in a move to cap the spiralling cost of pursuing claims against the NHS.

The following ideas were put forward for exploration:

• no fault compensation – which may save time and costs in achieving settlements. This would encourage a more open system by not blaming staff;
• structured settlements – instead of lump sum settlements, patients would receive periodic payments based on their future needs, including nursing care or other treatment;
• fixed tariff schemes for specific injuries;
• greater use of mediation for settling disputes.

Pressure to improve the system of clinical negligence was increased by a National Audit Office report that found that on average, those cases closed in 1999/00 took five and a half years to settle and that costs are spiralling – totalling nearly £400 million in 1999/2000.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) played an active part in the consultation process. They have called for a whole new approach to the way in which the NHS handles the aftermath of a medical accident, starting with the way patient complaints are handled.

Says APIL president, Patrick Allen, “We know from experience that many patients don’t necessarily want financial recompense so remedies must include a thorough and independent investigation of any complaint made and an explanation, apology and assurance that the same mistake won’t happen again. If an apology is made and the injured patient understands why and how the accident happened, the number of people having to resort to litigation may be reduced.”

APIL recommends that financial compensation of up to £10,000 should be available for patients who seek damages but don’t want to litigate. By offering patients the option of claiming up to £10,000 through a combined complaints and small claims system, they believe the situation would be avoided where low cost claims cost more to pursue than the value of the award.

APIL is opposing calls for a no-fault compensation scheme. Their view is that evidence clearly shows that such schemes are expensive for the state and unfair to victims. As for larger awards, APIL supports alternatives to lump sum payments provided victims are adequately protected.



 

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.