Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:11:47.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Litigation trends and costs in otorhinolaryngology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2015

C W Metcalfe ,
S J Muzaffar  and
C J Coulson
C W Metcalfe*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
S J Muzaffar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
C J Coulson
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Christopher Metcalfe, Department of Otolaryngology, City Hospital, Dudley Road, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Litigation in surgery is increasing and liabilities are becoming unsustainable. This study aimed to analyse trends in claims, and identify areas for potential risk reduction, improved patient safety and a reduction in the number, and cost, of future claims.

Methods:

Ten years of retrospective data on claims in otorhinolaryngology (2003–2013) were obtained from the National Health Service Litigation Authority via a Freedom of Information request. Data were re-entered into a spreadsheet and coded for analysis.

Results:

A total of 1031 claims were identified; of these, 604 were successful and 427 were unsuccessful. Successful claims cost a total of £41 000 000 (mean, £68 000). The most common areas for successful claims were: failure or delay in diagnosis (137 cases), intra-operative problems (116 cases), failure or delay in treatment (66 cases), failure to warn – informed consent issue (54 cases), and inappropriate treatment (47 cases).

Conclusion:

Over half of the claims in ENT relate to the five most common areas of liability. Recent policy changes by the National Health Service Litigation Authority, over the level of information divulged, limits our learning from claims.

Keywords

JurisprudenceOtolaryngologyAccess To Information
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 10 , October 2015 , pp. 941 - 944
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1NHS Litigation Authority. Factsheet 1: basic information. In: http://www.nhsla.com/currentactivity/Documents/NHS%20LA%20Factsheet%201%20-%20basic%20information%202013-14.pdf [10 January 2014]Google Scholar
2NHS Litigation Authority. Factsheet 2: financial information. In: http://www.nhsla.com/currentactivity/Documents/NHS%20LA%20Factsheet%202%20-%20financial%20information%20-%202013-14.pdf [10 January 2014]Google Scholar
3NHS Litigation Authority. Factsheet 3: information on claims 2013-14. In: http://www.nhsla.com/currentactivity/Documents/NHS%20LA%20Factsheet%203%20-%20claims%20information%202013-14.pdf [10 January 2014]Google Scholar
4Mead, J. Trends in surgical litigation claims. Ann R Coll Surg Engl (Suppl) 2014;96:180–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5World Health Organization. WHO guidelines for safe surgery: safe surgery saves lives. In: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/tools_resources/9789241598552/en/ [11 January 2015]Google Scholar
6Getting It Right First Time: Improving the Quality of Orthopaedic Care within the National Health Service in England. In: http://www.gettingitrightfirsttime.com/downloads/BriggsReportA4_FIN.pdf [11 January 2015]Google Scholar
7Royal College of Surgeons. Surgical Workforce Report 2011. In: https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/surgeons/surgical-standards/docs/2011-surgical-workforce-census-report [10 February 2015]Google Scholar
8Savage, JR, Weiner, GM. Litigation in otolaryngology – trends and recommendations. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:1001–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Cartwright, S, Baer, S, Atrey, A. Appraisal of litigation against English Health Trusts in the treatment of adults with ear, nose & throat pathology: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol 2010;35:500–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Royal College of General Practitioners. 3.15 The Clinical Example On: Care of People with ENT, Oral and Facial Problems. In: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/training-exams/gp-curriculum-overview/~/media/Files/GP-training-and-exams/Curriculum-changes/RCGP-Curriculum-3-15-ENT-oral-and-facial-problems-track-change-2014.ashx [9 August 2015]Google Scholar
11Anderson, OA, Wearne, MJ. Informed consent for elective surgery—what is best practice? J R Soc Med 2007;100:97–100Google ScholarPubMed
12Kiss, CG, Richter-Mueksch, S, Stifter, E, Diendorfer-Radner, G, Velikay-Parel, M, Radner, W. Informed consent and decision making by cataract patients. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:94–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Sokol, DK. Update on the UK law on consent. BMJ 2015;350:h1481CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed