The NHS Redress Act is a courageous and proper response to the medical malpractice problem and is something that the citizens of the UK should be proud of.1 In 1987, I helped start and manage a programme in a US hospital that used early disclosure and compensation (but, unlike the NHS Redress Act, without any compensation ceiling). That programme is now in its 20th consecutive year of operation, and its record has been made public.2
The disclosure of error and offer of compensation is not a risk management scheme intended to benefit the institution. It is a common sense method to help redress the damage done to a patient who has been harmed by a medical error or negligence. Any benefit to the institution derives from that. If such a course is pursued competently and confidently, the NHS Redress Act probably will result in more paid claims than is now the case. However, the diminished anger resulting from the proper treatment of injured patients should mitigate monetary demands aimed mainly at punishing the NHS. This, and the decline in litigation and its costs, should result in lower total liability expenses at the same time that it benefits deserving patients. It is true that some persons with undeserving claims may attempt to profit from the scheme. This can be prevented by performing complete investigations (to defend the NHS in the event of litigation) and steadfastly declining to compensate such plaintiffs. With time, this will discourage undeserved claims.
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- 1.Furniss R, Ormond-Walshe S. An alternative to the clinical negligence system. BMJ 2007;334:400-2. (24 February.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kraman SS, Hamm G. Risk management: extreme honesty may be the best policy. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:963-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]