Clinical negligence practice across the globe: the stats and numbers
With the rising number of clinical negligence claims around the world the question of when and who is expected to provide compensation in cases where the episodes of clinical negligence were found and confirmed. Whether it is going to be a provider of healthcare services or insurance company, the system of social insurance funds or some organisations funded by contributions of physicians and (or) patients, or the state.
To facilitate the growing burden of medical fees for insurance policies of professional responsibility the British government in 1990 introduced a national system of liability insurance that covers doctors (except family) and dentists working in hospitals and other medical institutions of public health sector. Under this system, compensation for damage is caused by medical intervention, paying those medical institutions employing doctors found guilty of causing damage. This increased control of the management of health care organisations over the work of staff. According to solicitors.guru, the legal platform gathering hundreds of medical negligence solicitors under one roof, the introduction of the process has significantly unloaded courts and positively affected the average hearing period.
As a rule, disputes over compensation for damages, suffered as a result of medical intervention, are resolved in court. It is always associated with a fairly complex and lengthy procedure of trial and emotional stress on the part of the patient (the plaintiff), and health worker (the defendant) and the administration of treatment of the organisation. The practice of law and forensic evaluation of adverse outcomes of medical care shows that in 33-58% of cases the patient’s dissatisfaction with medical care during the subsequent examination of medical assistance is assessed as adequate. The proportion of European medical practice in such cases ranges from 53 to 59%. At the same time, many of these incidents could have been avoided, keeping staff away from from unproductive conflict resolution in court and saving time for forensic on challenging commission assessment of the quality of care. High developed economies have long admitted the fact that the price of the complaint that goes beyond the clinic, starts to rise steadily, acquiring judicial, expert and other costs. For example, in the US the cost of a three-year trial on the complaint exceeds $13,000. In addition to the economic losses arising from the conflict in the area of health care, you cannot ignore the moral damage inflicted to both sides, which ultimately leads to higher prices and lower quality of care.
To assist the patients with proving that the cause of the damage is nothing but medical intervention a system of compensation for the damage suffered by the patient, requiring no specific perpetrators and the evidence of their guilt, which is especially difficult for the victim, is widely utilised. It is based on the concept of liability without fault. For the first time such a system has been introduced in New Zealand in the early 70s, where it acts as a kind of social security. The concept comes from the fact that in some cases the damage to a patient during a medical intervention was not an episode of gross negligence or negligent actions of the medical staff, but may be explained by the unfavorable circumstances, unforeseen reaction of the patient and other unpredictable factors due to which the damage was caused.
