Medical Negligence and Duty of Care
Medical negligence occurs when a healthcare professional breaches their duty of care to a patient, causing harm, and requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and damage, with the Bolam test and its Montgomery modification defining the standard of care.
Key Facts
Four elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damage (harm) — all four must be proven Bolam test (1957): a doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion Bolitho v City and Hackney (1998): the court can reject a body of opinion if it is not logically defensible Montgomery (2015): for consent/disclosure, the test is patient-centred (what would a reasonable patient want to know) Causation must be proven on the balance of probabilities (>50% likely that breach caused the harm) 'But for' test: but for the breach, would the harm have occurred? NHS Resolution (formerly NHSLA) handles clinical negligence claims against the NHS; annual cost approximately £2.4 billion Duty of candour: legal and professional obligation to be open and honest when things go wrong (Health and Social Care Act 2008)
Overview
Key Facts
Medical negligence law protects patients who suffer harm due to substandard care while providing a framework within which healthcare professionals can practise without fear of liability for honest clinical judgement.
Elements of Negligence
- Duty of care: established by the doctor-patient relationship (begins on acceptance of care)
- Breach of duty: failure to meet the required standard of care
- Causation: the breach caused (or materially contributed to) the harm
- Damage: the patient suffered actual harm (physical, psychological, financial)
Standard of Care
- Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957): doctor not negligent if acting in accordance with practice accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if other doctors would have acted differently
- Bolitho v City and Hackney (1998): the court can assess whether the body of opinion is logically defensible (Bolam is not a complete defence if the practice is illogical)
- Montgomery (2015): for consent and disclosure, the standard is patient-centred, not doctor-centred
Causation
- 'But for' test: would the harm have occurred but for the breach? If yes, no causation
- Material contribution: if the breach materially contributed to the harm (even if not sole cause)
- Loss of chance: some recognition in clinical negligence (Chester v Afshar 2004 — modified causation for consent cases)
Limitation Period
- 3 years from date of injury (or date of knowledge)
- Extended for children (3 years from 18th birthday)
- No limitation for those lacking capacity
Clinical Presentation
Common Areas of Clinical Negligence Claims
- Delayed diagnosis (particularly cancer)
- Surgical errors and complications
- Medication errors (wrong drug, wrong dose, drug interactions)
- Failure to act on test results
- Inadequate consent (Montgomery)
- Obstetric complications (cerebral palsy claims are highest value)
- Missed fractures in A&E
- Failure to refer appropriately
Duty of Candour
- Statutory duty (Health and Social Care Act 2008, Regulation 20)
- When a notifiable safety incident occurs:
- Inform the patient (or family) as soon as reasonably practicable
- Provide a truthful account of what happened
- Offer an apology
- Provide support
- Document everything
- Professional duty (GMC): be open and honest when things go wrong
- An apology is NOT an admission of liability (Compensation Act 2006)
Red Flags for Potential Negligence
- Significant deviation from accepted practice without justification
- Failure to follow NICE guidelines without documented clinical reasoning
- Failure to act on abnormal investigation results
- Inadequate documentation
- Failure to escalate deteriorating patient
- System failures (wrong-site surgery, never events)
Differential Diagnosis
| Element | Test | Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Duty of care | Doctor-patient relationship | Arises on acceptance of care |
| Breach (treatment) | Bolam/Bolitho | Responsible body of opinion, logically defensible |
| Breach (consent) | Montgomery | What reasonable patient would want to know |
| Causation | 'But for' test | Balance of probabilities (>50%) |
| Damage | Actual harm | Physical, psychological, or financial |
Diagnosis / Investigation
Investigation of Incidents
- Incident reporting: DATIX/national reporting system
- Root cause analysis (RCA): systematic investigation of serious incidents
- Structured Judgement Review: methodology for reviewing care
- Coroner's inquest: if death is unexpected, violent, or in custody
- GMC investigation: if fitness to practise concerns
- NHS Resolution: manages claims, provides learning
Documentation
- Contemporaneous, accurate, legible medical records are the best defence
- Document clinical reasoning, differential diagnoses, discussions with patients
- Record consent discussions (not just the form)
- Document safety-netting advice given
- Record telephone consultations and advice given
Management
Prevention of Negligence Claims
- Maintain competence through CPD
- Follow evidence-based guidelines (document departures with reasoning)
- Communicate effectively with patients
- Practice thorough informed consent (Montgomery)
- Document clearly and contemporaneously
- Respond to complaints promptly and openly
- Learn from near misses and serious incidents
- Participate in clinical governance (audit, M&M meetings)
Responding to a Claim
- Notify medical defence organisation immediately
- Notify trust/employer
- Do not discuss the case with colleagues (beyond clinical need)
- Preserve all relevant records
- Cooperate with investigation
- Seek personal support (psychological impact can be significant)
Referral/Support
- Medical defence organisation (MDU, MPS, MDDUS): immediate advice and legal support
- NHS Resolution: handles claims on behalf of NHS trusts
- GMC: separate regulatory process (fitness to practise)
- Practitioner Health Programme: support for affected doctors
Prognosis
- NHS clinical negligence claims cost approximately £2.4 billion/year (2022/23)
- Obstetrics accounts for approximately 50% of total claims value (though only 12% of claims by number)
- Most claims are settled or discontinued; fewer than 2% proceed to trial
- Delay in diagnosis claims are increasing in proportion
- Good communication and duty of candour reduce claims: patients who feel listened to are less likely to litigate
- The emotional impact on healthcare professionals involved in claims is significant ('second victim' phenomenon)
Other Relevant Information
Key Medical Negligence Cases
| Case | Year | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Bolam v Friern Hospital | 1957 | Standard of care: responsible body test |
| Bolitho v City & Hackney | 1998 | Body of opinion must be logically defensible |
| Montgomery v Lanarkshire | 2015 | Patient-centred consent: material risks |
| Chester v Afshar | 2004 | Modified causation for consent cases |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | 1932 | Established 'neighbour principle' for duty of care |
Never Events (Examples)
| Never Event | Description |
|---|---|
| Wrong site surgery | Operating on wrong limb/side |
| Wrong implant/prosthesis | Incorrect device inserted |
| Retained foreign object | Swab, instrument left in patient |
| Wrong route administration | IV drug given orally or vice versa |
| Air embolism | Air introduced via IV line |