IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v17y2022i3p266-281_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical negligence cases in the English NHS: uncertainty in evidence as a driver of settlement costs and societal outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Carter, Alexander W.
  • Mossialos, Elias
  • Redhead, Julian
  • Papalois, Vassilios

Abstract

The cost of clinical negligence claims continues to rise, despite efforts to reduce this now ageing burden to the National Health Service (NHS) in England. From a welfarist perspective, reforms are needed to reduce avoidable harm to patients and to settle claims fairly for both claimants and society. Uncertainty in the estimation of quanta of damages, better known as financial settlements, is an important yet poorly characterised driver of societal outcomes. This reflects wider limitations to evidence informing clinical negligence policy, which has been discussed in recent literature. There is an acute need for practicable, evidence-based solutions that address clinical negligence issues, and these should complement long-standing efforts to improve patient safety. Using 15 claim cases from one NHS Trust between 2004 and 2016, the quality of evidence informing claims was appraised using methods from evidence-based medicine. Most of the evidence informing clinical negligence claims was found to be the lowest quality possible (expert opinion). The extent to which the quality of evidence represents a normative deviance from scientific standards is discussed. To address concerns about the level of uncertainty involved in deriving quanta, we provide five recommendations for medico-legal stakeholders that are designed to reduce avoidable bias and correct potential market failures.

Suggested Citation

  • Carter, Alexander W. & Mossialos, Elias & Redhead, Julian & Papalois, Vassilios, 2022. "Clinical negligence cases in the English NHS: uncertainty in evidence as a driver of settlement costs and societal outcomes," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 266-281, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:266-281_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133121000177/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:266-281_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.