Background:
The NHS Redress Bill contains a new scheme for providing “quick and appropriate” responses to cases of clinical negligence, for small claims. The aim of the Bill is to provide an alternative to litigation as well as reducing delays and creating a more coherent system.
The NHS Redress scheme will place a duty on providers and commissioners of hospital services to ensure patients receive a more “consistent, speedy and appropriate response” to clinical negligence.
Health Minister Jane Kennedy said the Bill would, “mean fairness for patients, not fees for lawyers. It is an important step in preventing a US-style litigation culture.”
The Government wants to improve patients’ experience of the NHS by giving them an explanation when things go wrong. Patients would receive an apology and be told what action was being taken to put things right.
Opening the second reading debate in the Lords on November 2, Health minister Lord Warner said, “The NHS Confederation welcomes the Bill, ‘if it can succeed in its aim to make the cumbersome compensation process more effective.’ ”
Stakeholder Responses:
Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
The CPPIH welcomes the proposals in the Bill to create a redress scheme for small claims for medical negligence. The length of time taken and the cost involved in securing compensation has hardly been patient centred.
We are pleased that under the new scheme this should happen much more quickly and patients and their representatives should no longer be put through the additional stress of complex, costly and lengthy proceedings on top of that caused by the injury itself.
We are concerned, however, by the apparent lack of independence in the decision-making, which has been left entirely to the NHS Litigation Authority. It is wrong that the NHS, which was the cause of the injury, should itself be the judge.
We hope that the Government will incorporate a measure of independence in the scheme.
NHS Confederation
Gary Fereday, Policy Manager at the NHS Confederation – which represents more than 90% of NHS organisations – said:
“We welcome the Bill if it can succeed in its aim to make the cumbersome compensation process more effective.
“Where patients are entitled to compensation, they should get it more quickly and more efficiently. We will work with our members to ensure that the detail of the legislation will be workable for patients and NHS organisations on the ground.”
Business Services Association
Our main concern is around how the Bill will define ‘clinical negligence’. Staff working for support services companies in the health sector are called upon regularly to undertake tasks which support clinical activity, although they will not actually conduct medical procedures.
For example: porters change clinical gas cylinders and transport crash trolleys, switchboard operators handle emergency calls and some companies in the sector may run Pharmacies and Imaging Operations.
Even more crucially, many healthcare assistants, who interface directly with the clinical care of patients, are employed by support services companies - since there is still no official process of regulation for this job role, it is not clear where they will fit into the picture.
It is not yet clear whether the exclusion in Explanatory Note 12(a) for ‘non-health care professionals’ will cover all these activities, and this is clearly a matter of concern to the companies involved, even though their own 3rd party or professional liability insurance may offer them some protection.
We would urge Government to consider whether a more detailed list of exclusions should be drawn up for inclusion in the Notes, and would then wish to review the potential implications for our sector.
Click here to return to the Briefings menu
