|
|
|
Return to Our Comments
TYPES & CAUSES OF MEDICAL MISTAKES
We wish to stress
that
the majority of patients in the UK receive good care , and
every family in the land has good reason to be thankful to the medical
profession. However, it is obvious that health professionals are
human and with the best will in the world, mistakes will occur.
This has at last been acknowledged. The only people who have insisted
they are infallible have been the the doctors themselves - patients
have always known that they make mistakes.
The Chief Medical Officer published
research
estimating that one patient in ten will experience a medical error
when attending a hospital ( this does not include GP errors). This amounts
to 800,000 victims of errors per year. Most result in minor and reversible
damage, whilst others cause death and permanent injury.
Prof. Charles Vincent, [March 2001] investigated 1,000 medical records from two unnamed hospitals for mistakes, and then extrapolated
his findings to cover the whole of the UK. He estimated that 68,000 deaths
per year are caused through medical errors, of these 34,000 were terminally
ill patients and would have died anyway, leaving 34,000 patients who
die needlessly every year. The equivalent of two jumbo jets crashing every
week. His figures estimated that 46,000 were left with serious and permanent
injuries. [ This did not include GP errors
and their consequences] Obviously, everything that can
be done to reduce errors should be done. We understand that iatrogenesis
is the the third cause of illness and the third cause of death in
UK medicine. Urgent research is needed into the effects and consequences
of iatrogenic damage on the patient victims and the health professionals
involved.
Types of medical Errors: a
patient could receive one or a combination of these
1. Misdiagnosis: According to the
Chief Medical Officer, in his Paper " Organisation with a
Memory" - 55% of errors are caused by misdiagnosis. If the
diagnosis is wrong, then appropriate medical care will not be forthcoming.
On the basis of these figures can we draw the conclusion that 55% of
all error deaths and 55% of all iatrogenic injury stem from mis-diagnoses?
- e.g. John's, Des's, Gillian's, Helen's cases etc.
2. Inappropriate medication
- eg. Helen's case causing tremendous physical damage
3. Inaccurate dosage -
eg. Art & Vicki McConnell ,lost their only child, 9 year
old Lexie,
when
she was given 80 mgs of corticsteroid,Prednisolone. The maximum dosage for
an adult was 60mgs per day according to the British National Formulary, and
this would only be given for very serious life threatening conditions. Lexie,
child, received this massive overdose for a straightforward, easily
treatable eye infection. Her parents were not warned that her immune system
would be severely compromised. In fact it collapsed and Lexie caught chicken
pox and died in less than 6 weeks in 1992. It was then acknowledged that
all she needed for her mild eye infection, was a standard antibiotic
4. Surgical
errors/blunders - Bristol babies, Ledward, Neale, Janet's case.
5. Inappropriate ( wrong) surgery
- removal of healthy kidney, healthy breast etc Jennifer
Cormack had a double mastectomy following errors by doctors at the
Royal London Hospital Whitechapel in 1985. It was not until 1994 that she
was informed of the error, she did not have cancer!. It took until October
2000 for her to receive compensation.. Graham Reeves, 70, had the wrong kidney
( healthy) removed by surgeons at the Prince Philip Hospital in Llanelli.
His diseased kidney then had to be removed at Swansea's Morriston Hospital,
he died in intensive care. March 2000
6. Inappropriate treatment
or test - can delay the correct diagnosis, leading
to greater damage or death. eg. 41 year old Steve Harley from Barnsley South
Yorkshire who was misdiagnosed by different doctors on 19 separate occasions
4 different GPs, 5 hospital doctors and 3 specialists. From July 1999 he suffered
excruciating throat pain - but, inexplicably, in spite of a range of tests
and scans, 22 examinations in all - nothing showed up. Apparently these scans
never quite covered the affected area! - Eventually discovered he had huge
inoperable throat cancer. Steve eventually lost part of his tongue, and
his larynx. e.g. John's case.
7. No appropriate treatment
or test given - lack of care - Des's & Gillian's case.
Phoebe Birdseye 5 year old - swallowed tack
which stuck in throat. This was surgically
removed. However, child developed an abscess because she was not given
any antibiotics, a routine clinical procedure. In spite of of parents
ringing alarm bells - several doctor failed to give appropriate tests.
Phoebe died when abscess burst and closed her windpipe at Queen's Medical
Centre, Nottingham in July 2002
8. Procedure incorrectly performed
or Incorrect procedure eg. Wayne Jowett,
Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham - spinal injection
which should have been an intravenous injection - caused agonising
death over two weeks in February 2001. Julia's case
9. Error(s) in Medical Records,
including omissions- very frequent, leading to major problems.
10. Equipment failure - D.o.H's first national
audit of hospital equipment found that more than a third of life saving machinery
is dangerously old.
11. Poor hygiene - leading to infection.
5,000 lose their lives each year due to hospital caught infections.
Causes of Medical Errors
1. Simple human error - We have all
completed routine tasks successfully and yet there
comes an occasion when for no
apparent reason, a mistake occurs.
2. Intense stress: difficult
decisions to be made and unpleasant sights to cope with.
We are aware that doctors have special and
very important work - they are often dealing with life
and death situations. When most people make a mistake at work it may
be serious but it is unlikely to be life-threatening. Although doctors
are trained to disengage their emotions, good doctors must retain some
contact with their humanity and relate to the patient as a fellow human
being. The burden of responsibility at times must be very heavy
indeed.
3. Tiredness as a result
of excessively long hours on call. This occurs especially amongst
Junior doctors and should be rectified.
4. Inadequate supervision:
junior or trainee doctors should not be expected to
perform
beyond their field of competence. This is a failure of
senior staff to take responsibility for juniors. Night
sessions, weekends and national holiday times are all likely to have reduced
senior and consultant cover. itr is at these times that medcial errors
are msot likely. It took over 6 hours for a consultant to reach little
Phoebe Birdseye on a Saturday, in spite of obvious distress, and when he
did it was too late.
5 Inadequate training:
we believe that the majority of medical errors are caused by poorly
trained and poorly supervised junior staff.
6. Work overload - systems
failure
7. Poor communications: doctors &
nurses receiving the wrong medication or information
8. Inadequate support staff
:systems failure: lack of resources
9. Physical or mental illness
/ personal stress of health professional: work below par
10 Infections: not following proper
procedures.
11. Inadequate skills -
incompetence & negligence not recognised by individual
doctor eg. Rodney Ledward & Richard Neale
12. Poor attitude: laziness, failure
to keep up with developments in a speciality, complacency and arrogance.
Failure to write down accurate symptoms, test results, case histories,
checking equipment, checking medication, reading instructions etc etc-
sheer carelessness.
SIN believes that whatever
the cause of the medical error the patient or family should receive
compensation for any resultant death or serious, permanent injury.
SIN believes that personal responsibility is a moral obligation.
Return to Our
Comments
April 14th
2003
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT DENIAL
& COVER UPS EXIST
No health professional rushes
around to inform the relatives or the patient that they have been the
victim of a medical error which has caused death or serious injury.The
relatives or patients find themselves fighting for the truth, justice and
medical care. They are isolated, traumatised and stranded in a 'no man's
land'. Iatrogenic patients find themselves in limbo: overnight they have
become the modern-day leper, or 'hot potato'. No one wants to deal with an
iatrogenic patient, for to give them appropriate medical care would be to
acknowledge that damage has occurred and/or pay compensation, so the only
thing to do is to begin a 'denial and cover-up' strategy.That iatrogenic
patients are denied care and become the victims of cruel and wicked
cover-ups has, at last, been acknowledged.
First time:
SIN was the first organisation
to make such an assertion in its 'Aims & Objective' in Nov. 1998.
" .....there is evidence that
doctors subsequently deny patients appropriate treatment to cover-up their
colleagues' incompetence and/or negligent mistakes. One theory is that
appropriate treatment to remedy iatrogenic damage could possibly lead
to a successful complaint and/or disciplinary action and/or.... medical
negligence litigation, [and even criminal charges]"
Second Time
The Health Select Committee in June 1999 held an investigation
into "Adverse medical Incidents & Their
Outcomes" and took evidence, written and oral,
from almost three hundred patients involved in serious medical errors.
The accounts of the experiences of some of the most vulnerable citizens
in Britain, were horrific. An Observer headline on Sunday, 24 October
1999 was: "Doctors blacklist complaining patients."
based on the findings of the Health Select Committee. This article also
promoted SIN as a patient support and pressure group to
fight against this victimisation. If doctors blacklist patients
this means that they are being denied their lawful right to medical care,
including specialist care! Not only is this unlawful, we believe it to
be criminal.
Third Time:
Alan Milburn, Secretary of State for Health
on the D.o.H. website dated..10th July 2001, stated that "...mistakes
are hidden and cover ups can occur." If a cover-up
is in progress then the truth cannot be told and so misleading and dangerously
inaccurate statements are made; test results are falsified, documents
are changed or go missing, and derogatory remarks are written on patients'
records to discredit the patient.
Fourth Time:
In a leaked document from the D.o.H., extracts published
in the Daily Mail dated 28th December 2001, " Haunted
by 50 scandals a year .....the NHS expects up to 50 scandals a year
in which doctors have maimed or killed patients in botched operations
[misdiagnoses] or subjected them to verbal [written
], physical or sexual abuse...."
To the shame of the D.o.H.- these scandals are not exposed,
they are suppressed.
Fifth Time:
Lord Woolf,
himself, recognised that victims of a medical
error can be denied medical care stating, in his inaugural lecture
17th January 2001 : "They
[doctors] needed to recognise that because patients felt they had
been a victim of medical malpractice, this did not
justify withdrawing treatment...."
"The patient has the right to the truth about their medical
condition and such cover-ups are obviously unethical, in some cases criminal,
and can never be defended or justified. It is disgraceful in a so-called
democratic and civilised country that such a pivotal profession must
lie". quote from SIN's Paper 3 " Balancing the
Scales : SIN's case for a Victim's Compensation Fund" para 2.11 submitted
to D.o.H. March 2002.
April 14th 2003
WHY HAS THE DENIAL & COVER-UP
CULTURE BEEN ALLOWED TO THRIVE?
Cover ups are easy to initiate, maintain
and are very convenient!
SIN believe that there are several reasons why this disgraceful
and unhealthy practice thrives:
1.
Instinctive human
reaction by a health professional to deny and cover up a grave
medical error which has caused death or very serious permanent injury
to a patient. All health professionals who have the misfortune to be
in this situation should receive counselling, many will be in a state
of shock. However, the needs of the patient must
be paramount and they too should receive counselling.
2. The unethical, misguided professional allegiance
which exists within the medical profession: the 'closing of
the ranks syndrome'. The idea that you do not 'shop' your
colleagues, even though a colleague could be incompetent and damaging
patients and in urgent need of retraining and help. ' There ,but for
the grace of God, go I', is the mistaken philosophy. As long as
no one breaks ranks, then on one needs to be held responsible for incompetence
or malpractice. Such misguided professional allegiance is now known
to have protected several notorious doctors who were maiming and killing
patients for years in spite of many colleagues being fully aware of the
damage they were wreaking on patients eg. Ledward, Neale, Wisheart &
Dasmardan. As long as such allegiance remains rock solid, it ensures that
the medical profession can lead a comfortable life, free from accountability
and responsibility. The hatred of anyone breaking ranks can be seen
in the way whistle blowers are treated, the best known example is, of
course, Dr. Steve Bolsin who was denied any further work in the UK
and was forced to go Australia. Denial of work is a common punishment for
whistle blowing health professionals.
3. The professionals hold the power. It is very easy
to orchestrate a cover-up which is always well planned and deliberate.
Our medical records are under their control and not ours. Critical documents
can be removed and 'lost', others can be changed. Tests can be falsified
and dangerously misleading or inaccurate statements can be made. Furthermore,
it is usual for derogatory remarks to be written in order to discredit
the patient. In this way cover-ups can be maintained. Doctors seem unperturbed
by the fact that such actions prevent seriously ill patients from
obtaining desperately needed specialist care and indeed put lives at
risk. The trauma of the victims cannot be overstated.
4. Clinical judgement is infallible. It
does not matter what a doctor writes, it can be untrue or complete nonsense
- no one is allowed to challenge clinical judgement. The myth of
clinical infallibility has surely been exploded? With 34,000 needless
deaths and 46.000 patients seriously and permanently damaged
per year by medical errors - it is obvious that
it is very necessary to challenge clinical judgement. After all, 55%
of clinical errors are misdiagnoses. Lord Woolf, in his Inaugural Lecture,
January 17th 2001, described this as the courts being "... excessively
deferential to the Medical Profession ..".and bestowing the profession
with "..unwarranted assumption of beneficence..." , the
final conclusion being: "the courts can no longer rely on
hospitals and the medical profession to resolve patients justified complaints
justly...."
5. Cover- ups are convenient and
advantageous to the Health Authorities and Trusts : a blind
eye is turned to patients with serious clinical complaints. No impartial,
thorough investigation is ever carried out. Such actions ensures that
they will not be liable for compensation and
nor will they have to deal with the vexed problem of
incompetent or malpractising doctors. Health professionals are instructed
that they must not acknowledge that a serious error with damage has occurred
- they have a duty of allegiance to the Trust. Lord Woolf explained in
his Inaugural Lecture, January 17th 2001, that from the inception of the
NHS a decision was made that compensation claims must be resisted.
To this end, cover-ups are very useful and all challenges
in the courts will be defended to excess, despite the merits of
the individual case. No regard for the tax-payer's
money nor respect for justice and truth, let alone the needs of the iatrogenic
patient and their relatives. The result of this policy has been dire to
the NHS where for decades there has been little or no accountability or
quality control.
SIN reiterates:
"patients can cope with the original mistake,
it is the subsequent denial and cover-up - the deceit and the
lies - that cause the real trauma Such
cover-ups are cruel and wicked to the patient victims and indeed must
have a deleterious effect on the psychological well being of doctors
and nurses who purport to be part of a caring profession".
"The patient has the right to the truth about their medical
condition and such cover-ups are obviously unethical, and in some
cases criminal, and can never be defended or justified. It is disgraceful
that in a so-called democracy and civilised country that such a pivotal
profession must lie. This 50 years of a 'denial and cover up' culture
has resulted in a continual lowering of standards because there has
been little or no quality control or accountability. The result has
been that the care being provided to British nationals, has been shown
to be amongst the lowest in Western Europe for the major specialities".
quotes
from SIN's 'Open letter' in our Aims & Objectives. & from Paper
3 'Balancing the Scales: SIN's case fro a Victim's Compensation Fund'
para. 2.11 March 2002
SIN suggests the removal
of three main barriers to rid us of this obnoxious denial and cover up
culture:
(1) Abolition of misguided professional
allegiance: The removal of this barrier preventing iatrogenic patients
from receiving the truth and the care to which they are entitled, -
lies in the hands of the medical profession.
The bullying and the intimidation of whilstle blowers and would-be whistle
blowers must stop. Surely it is time for the good doctors with integrity
to stand up and be counted? The interests of the patient
must come first.
(2) NHS''s control
over our medical notes must cease: The removal
of this second barrier to the truth and appropriate medical care is SIN's
suggestion "...that
the statutory rights of patients must include copies of all medical records
(including test results) being available after any consultation on request
checked, signed and dated by the patient. This would prevent the propagation
of inaccurate information, prevent any retrospective changing; and would
be a protection for both doctor and patient".
SIN's 'Aims & Objectives'
1999
(3)Iatrogenic patients must stop being perceived as potential
litigants: Cover ups are advantageous
to the NHS. Cover ups hinder and prevent
successful compensation claims. Introduction of a 'Victim's Compensation Fund'
is urgently required. The iatrogenic patient, being perceived as a
potential litigant, means that any appropriate care or
treatment is considered as giving the innocent iatrogenic victim evidence
to support their claim of iatrogenic damage. In this way the damaged patient's
medical care is jeopardise4 and lives are put at risk.
Removal of this third
barrier would be achieved by the introduction of a 'Victim's Compensation
Fund' as a matter of urgency. SIN has been advocating this for
the last four years.
"A victim's compensation fund will transform the present
culture of denial and cover-up to one of openness and honesty when
mistakes are readily admitted. Irrespective of the cause of the iatrogenic
damage, the patient has a right to the truth and should receive appropriate
compensation. The establishment of such an initiative will be
a milestone in the history of the NHS and will revolutionise the equity
of the doctor/patient relationship, bringing the UK into step with its
European counterparts and the NHS into the 21st. century. All this will
mean changing the "mindset" of 50 years. This new approach to iatrogenic
damage is imperative to ensure that the basic human right to adequate
health care is upheld. ( Article 25 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
UN 10.12.48). Quote for SIN's Paper
3 'Balancing the Scales: Case for a Victim's Compensation Fund' concluding para. 7.3
submitted
to D.o.H. March 2002
Return to
Top
|
Return to Our Comments
SOS - HANDS OFF
OUR MEDICAL RECORDS
SIN has been campaigning 4 years
for the rights of patients to have control over their medical records. Accurate
medical records are vital for good health care. Inaccurate medical records
can put lives at risk and cause much unnecessary suffering. " Copies
of all medical records to be to be available after
any consultation on request. Checked, signed and dated by the patient and
doctor. This will prevent subsequent changing of records and stop genuine
mistakes and inaccurate information from being propagated." SIN 'Aims
& Objectives' 1999.
"Milburn scraps right to amend NHS
Files"
Guardian Tuesday, February
25th 2003 by David Henke, Westminster correspondent.
The above article was brought
to our attention by several concerned individuals and appeared in the
Guardian at the end of February. Extracts from the article will be written
in black, comments by SIN in red. The article appears to be rather
muddled and covers issues of amendments by patients, charges for copying
records and time for access.
" Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary has reneged on a government
pledge to allow NHS patients the right to correct inaccurate
facts or opinions held on their medical records.
Patients were
given the legal right to amend their medical records in the 1990
Medical Records Act under Section 6 (b).
This Act stated: Section 6 (1) " Where a person considers that
any information contained in a health record, or any part of a health
record, to which he/she has been given access under section 3(c) ...is
inaccurate, he may apply to the holder of the record for the necessary
correction to be made.
(2) On an application under subsection (1)above, the holder
of the record shall -
(a) if he is satisfied that the information is inaccurate, make
the necessary correction;
(b) if he is not so satisfied, make in the
part of the record in which the information is contained a note of the
matters in respect of which the information is considered by the applicant
to be inaccurate; and
(c) in either case, without requiring any
fee, supply the applicant with a copy of the correction or note.
(3) In this section "inaccurate" means incorrect, misleading
or incomplete.
In our
experience doctors usually do refuse to change the offending record ,
even if evidence is produced to show that there are factual inaccuracies
in the record. In fact, doctors mostly refuse even to enter into any discussion
on the matter.
This Section 6(b) note gave the patient the statutory
right to attach, to the offending record, their version of events. This
could be a factual error or a difference of opinion. The original record
must be kept for legal reasons. Obviously, the problem is how can
the patient be sure that their version remained attached, and what can
the patient do if the offending record has been sent to other 'record
holders'? It becomes a mammoth task for sick patients to ensure that their
version is sent to all the health professionals involved in their
care. In the case of iatrogenic patients the misleading and dangerously
inaccurate statements can be legion. It is always the inaccurate
statements that are copied and widely dispersed.
In our experience the 6(b) note made by the patient was held in
little regard. One member reported that in her efforts to get her records
corrected she had used her legal right to amend her records and was horrified
to find when she went to court, the MDU, which was defending the
action she was bringing, brought her records to the court minus
her 6(b) notes. Therefore, they could not be used in evidence to
support her case. No explanation was given as to where her 6(b) notices
had gone: they had mysteriously disappeared.
We then move on to 'The Data Protection Act 1998 ( DPA) which
also contains a section on Medical Records. The DPA supersedes the Access
to Health Records Act 1990 which has been repealed, except for bereaved relatives
and their right to access their dead relatives' medical records. The
DPA covers all personal data kept in manual or computerised form. Such data
covers both facts and opinions held about an individual.
The Data Controller has a statutory obligation that whatever
data is held on an individual must be accurate. The individual data
subject ( patient) can request for correction, providing the data is incorrect
or misleading about a matter of fact, or contains an opinion based
on data which is factually inaccurate or misleading. In such
cases the Controller is obliged by law to correct, erase, destroy or
block the use of such information. Opinions cannot be challenged
unless they are based on wrong facts.
The DPA does not appear to allow patients themselves to add a Section
6(b) type notice. In our experience such Section 6(b) type notices were
held in little regard by doctors or hospitals. Therefore, if the Trust or
Heath Authorities are now obliged by Law to correct inaccurate records,
this would seem to be an improvement. However, if they refuse to comply then
the patient can seek advice from the Data Protection Information Commissioner,
who can force the Trust or HA to correct the records. But the Information
Commissioner has discretionary powers and may not act in favour of the patient,
who would then have to resort to Court action.
The newspaper article seems to suggest that the Secretary of State had
promised to rectify this and to allow patients the right once again to correct
their own notes as was in, the now obsolete, Access to Health Records
Act of 1990. The article goes on to say:
" The advice ignores pledges by Home
Office Ministers to allow patients to be able to add notes to their records,
correcting false facts or opinions, and for a fast track service.
The then Home Office Minister, Lord Bassam, told
parliament that the new guidance " will make clear that data controllers
should allow individuals to include a statement of their views on the relevant
records, if they disagree with the content of those records."
It is this promise
that appears to have been reneged upon, it was however, guidance
only and not in statute as it had been under section 6(b) in the 1990 Access
to Health Record Act. On balance, SIN believes is is
better to have the consultants and doctors, through the Trusts and HAs,
forced by law to correct inaccurate factual
and misleading comments. These new correct statements should be signed by
the appropriate doctor and issued on official NHS paper. The Trusts and
HAs are also obliged by law to erase, destroy or block any inaccurate data
and, therefore, we conclude that it is the data controller's statutory duty
to notify all other holders of the inaccurate data that this incorrect data
is to be 'corrected, erased, destroyed or blocked' and replaced by the accurate
data. Notification should be sent acknowledging that the correct data has
been officially received, the patient to be informed.
It seems from the article that costs of obtaining medical Records, the
time for access are also under discussion as well as the effect on our medical
records of the coming Freedom of Information Act .
" The Department of Health
guidance has set up an advisory committee - the Health Records and Data
Protection Review Group - to discuss in secret whether to increase charges
that can be levied by doctors.
The Department of Health is also discussing in secret plans to increase
charges, originally set at a maximum of £10 to £50 or more
for people to get their records. A plan to allow people "fast track" access
to their records in 21 rather than 40 days has been dropped.
The Department's action is to be raised at a meeting of the advisory
committee on implementing the Freedom of Information Act, set up by Lord
Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, to monitor developments in Whitehall.
Details emerged after the Campaign for Freedom of Information Pressure
Group obtained new Department of Health guidance, advising HAs and GP practices
what information should be available to patients
under the Data Protection Act". [ Surely patients should have access
to all their medical records?]
" When Maurice Frankel, Director
of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, asked for papers on the discussions,
he was refused by Raj Kaur, the civil servant chairing the group, because
" this would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion".
"Mr Frankel said yesterday : " It seems astonishing collapse of accountability
for all these commitments - made in a consultation document, in correspondence
with us in correspondence with a peer and in ministerial undertakings to
parliament - to be broken."
" The Department of Health yesterday initially defended its decisions
to keep secret discussions on charging and patients' rights until the committee
reports later this year. But facing potential criticisms form the Lord Chancellor's
Department , which does publish the minutes of advisory committees on Freedom
of Information, a ministry spokesman later said: " Some information may
now be made public."
One thing we can be sure of: - no individual patient support
groups will be represented on these committees. It is most likely that
the BMA, the MDU the GMC, the Confederation for Hospital Managers,
NHS Complaints Personnel, and Medico-legal Firms will have full committee
representation.
With regards to charging: under the old Access to Health Records Act
1990 - viewing of Records was free. The time scale for receiving
copies of records varied from 21 days to 40 Provided the patient had been
seen by the Trust or the GP within the previous 21 days, then the patient
could expect to obtain their records within 21 days. Otherwise, the wait
was 40 days. More often than not the Trusts, GPs and HAs broke the law by
not complying with the statutary deadline. There was a £10 basic fee
and after that each GP surgery, Trust or HA was able to charge a 'reasonable
' fee. This varied considerably from 5p a sheet to 25p a sheet or more.
Under the DPA a patient is entitled to inspect their medical records.
At the moment the maximum charge for copies for manual records appears
to be £50. The Data Controller must supply the information in 'permanent
form'. This normally means a print -out or photocopy, but could also include
copies of microfiches, x-rays or audio/video cassettes - it is expected
that these will cost extra, the exact cost is not yet known. The Data Controller
should normally give access within 40 days. Any unintelligible terms
or data, such as computer codes, must be explained. The patient does
not need to say why they want it. The Data Controller
cannot refuse access because you might use the data to criticise the controller,
complain or take legal action. This seems to be an important step forward
in patients' gaining control over their own medical records.
|
|
12th April 2003
Tax - Payer pays 3 times over for compensation claim
One case
that has come to our attention involved a patient who was severely disabled
through inappropriate surgery. She became disabled, and because her mobility
was greatly restricted, she lost her career. The stress of the experience caused the
break down of her long standing relationship and she was forced to go onto
state benefits as she fought through the courts her claim for considerable
compensation.
At one point,
without warning or explanation, her state benefits were stopped. Mysteriously
the computer showed no record of any previous payments. She was in danger
of loosing her home because she had no income on which to live. It took her
18 months and great distress before she was able to reach an Appeals Tribunal.
At this Tribunal the medical advisers refused even to look at her evidence
and said that her benefits would be re-instated immediately. Why were they
ever stopped in the first place? No explanation was ever given.
This patient was entitled to and received Legal Aid. She battled with
incompetent solicitors, being forced to change from one firm to another
during her legal battle. After eleven years of unbelievable stress she
won her case. The Health Authority had made several offers which she
had refused, and then three days before the
case was to come to court they agreed to make a favourable settlement.
We, the tax-payer have paid out three time over for this patient's justifiable
compensation. The Health Authority, or the NHS Litigation Authority
must have been fully aware from day one that they were liable for compensation,
yet in the words of Lord Woolf, they defended the case to excess,
regardless of the merits. They defended the indefensible
causing enormous unnecessary distress to the patient.
The tax-payer paid three times over:
1. The lawyers of the Health Authority were paid for their long drawn
out unnecessary and unethical defence.
2. The Legal Aid Board used tax-payer's money to pay for the patient's
Legal Aid for 11 years.
3. Finally, the tax-payer paid out for justifiable compensation!!
What a profligate waste of tax-payer's
money for which the Health Authority should be held accountable
WHEN WILL THE VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND
BE INTRODUCED?
IT IS LONG OVERDUE!
|
14th. April
2003
BBC Website Report on SIN's
London Demonstration, 15th April 2002
Medical Error
Victims Call For Action
Victims of medical errors have called
for the government to provide better protection for patients. A group of around
50 campaigners handed a petition to the Department of Health on Monday, 15th
April 2002. They say doctors must be made more accountable, and patients must
be given better access to the facts of their treatment.
The Demonstration was organised by the pressure group Sufferers of
Iatrogenic Neglect
( SIN). SIN founder member Gillian Bean
said:
" The unpalatable truth is that the victim of a medical blunder will
find that their ensuing health care has been put into jeopardy because to
give remedial care would be to disclose the fact that damage has occurred,
thereby giving evidence for a potential legal action.
" We want an end to the denial and cover-up culture. We want an open and
honest culture in which doctors will be able to acknowledged their mistakes."
Soaring Costs: Ms Bean said in an effort to contain
compensation pay outs, the NHS defended every case therefore sent legal costs
soaring. In order to reduce the legal bill, SIN wants a victim's
compensation fund to be set up.
Ms Bean said that the Chief Medical Officer has acknowledged that one in
10 patients attending hospitals will be subjected to a medical error. Recent
research has estimated 34,000 people die needlessly each year in UK hospitals.
Marilyn Lewis, of Action Against Unnecessary Hysterectomy ( AAUH),
said: " Having a womb is part of being a woman, and many of us can no longer
have physical relationships. All of us feel we have been misled and betrayed
by the medical profession."
Missing Files: Ellen Williams. 46, from Liverpool,
was implanted with HRT despite having endometriosis, or bleeding of the womb
lining. She said: "HRT exacerbates the problem and now I bleed from the
vagina and bowel, and have no womb. I have been unable to seek any sort of
compensation because medical files mysteriously went missing and we have no
evidence."
Derek Bye, of Poole, Dorset, became a member of Parents
Recognition of Paediatric Errors (PROPES). because his daughter
suffered a reaction to an injection given for diagnosing a urine infection.
"She has an inflammation of the brain and the consultant diagnosed epilepsy
and prescribed drugs fro this condition. Despite the fact I was not at all
happy with giving the drugs, I had to because they threatened to have her
taken into care if I did not comply". His daughter died and the family
was now helping police with manslaughter inquiries.
NET DOCTOR : htpp://www.netdoctor.co.uk/news/index
" Victims of medical errors have called
for the government to provide better protection for patients. Around 50 campaigners
have handed a petition to the Department of Health, saying that doctors must
be made more accountable, and that patients must be given better access to
the details of their treatment. The petition which was presented today ( 15th
April 2002), was organised by the pressure group Sufferers of Iatrogenic
Neglect. An iatrogenic illness is a condition
caused by the treatment a patient receives".
|
|
