Clinical risk最新文献_第9页

A vision for safer care? 更安全护理的愿景?

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-09-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214563011

H. Merrett

引用次数: 0

Obstetrics – Brain damage not due to negligence 产科-脑损伤不是由于疏忽造成的

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-09-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214561170

J. Mead

引用次数: 0

No negligence in management of rare condition 对罕见疾病的管理没有疏忽

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-09-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214561170a

J. Mead

引用次数: 0

MH (male) v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2012) Quantum: Paraplegia/Exacerbation of schizoaffective disorder following fall from hospital window MH(男性)诉切斯特菲尔德皇家医院NHS基金会信托基金(2012)量子:从医院窗户摔下后截瘫/分裂情感性障碍加重

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-09-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214560176

J. Vallance

引用次数: 0

Factual dispute in cerebral palsy claim – Joshua Tippett -v- Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (High Court 1/4/2014 – Dingemans J) 脑瘫索赔的事实争议- Joshua Tippett -v-盖伊和圣托马斯医院NHS基金会信托基金(高等法院2014年1月4日- Dingemans J)

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-07-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214554741B

J. Mead

引用次数: 0

Husband unable to recover for psychiatric Injuries 丈夫因精神创伤无法康复

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-07-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214554741

J. Mead

引用次数: 0

Hospital-acquired infections: Alfred Nel v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust 医院获得性感染:阿尔弗雷德·内尔·盖伊和圣托马斯NHS基金会信托基金

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-07-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214535204

Edwina Rawson

{"title":"Hospital-acquired infections: Alfred Nel v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust","authors":"Edwina Rawson","doi":"10.1177/1356262214535204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262214535204","url":null,"abstract":"Hospital-acquired infections continue to be a perennial problem. In addition, unfortunately, it continues to be very difficult for patients to get redress via litigation. This article considers a fascinating, yet disturbing, case that involved 20 people being infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa – a hospital infection that is not well known to the public. It also considers the adequacy of the present system for reporting hospitalacquired infections to Public Health England, formerly the Health Protection Agency. Alfred Nel’s claim against Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust was both fascinating from a lawyer’s perspective, especially evidentially, and appalling. It was a brutal example of the consequences of failings that are easily avoidable and involved the persistent problem of hospital-acquired infections. The issues reached far beyond the case itself – issues that affect all of us, as patients. Mr Nel almost died as a result of an outbreak of P. aeruginosa, a bacteria found in water which infected him and 19 others at Guy’s Hospital, London, in November 2005. A young woman, aged 21, died as a result of the same outbreak. I only acted for Mr Nel. The surgical unit at Guy’s Hospital was closed for a period of time after the outbreak became apparent. P. aeruginosa can spread by the transfer of bacteria on medical equipment such as breathing equipment, intravenous lines and catheters, as a result of contact with contaminated water. It is probably untreatable in most cases. It is prevented by hand hygiene and good infection control measures, such as medical equipment washers and disinfectors. Mr Nel was an exceptionally strong, rugby-playing South-African plumber, who was aged 38 at the time of the incident. He worked extremely hard and loved physical activity. He was robust and the type of man who did not complain about pain or illness. Mr Nel had a history of kidney stones, which had never caused him much trouble and which had been treated routinely in the past. He would usually return to work very soon after the treatment. Mr Nel had a recurrence of kidney stones in October 2005 and was treated for these at Guy’s Hospital on 1 November 2005. The procedure involved inserting an endoscope (a long tube with a light and camera at the end) up his ureter so that his kidney could be inspected. The kidney stones were treated, and the following day, a stent that had been inserted was removed. All seemed fine and he was discharged. A few hours later, Mr Nel became extremely unwell and had severe pain in his kidney area. He started showing signs of serious and extensive infection. The pain became unbearable and spread over his body, arms and legs until his entire body felt in agony. His wife called an ambulance, and he was taken to Luton & Dunstable Hospital. He was pyrexial, septic and unstable. Mr Nel needed emergency treatment. The doctors performed a percutaneous nephrostomy, which involved puncturing the skin to create a pathway for a tube to dr","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"20 1","pages":"95 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262214535204","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65476605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Trust hairdresser unable to recover for RSI – Lavinia Carrington -v- South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Southend County Court, 4/6/2014 – Judge Moloney QC) 信托发型师无法追回RSI - Lavinia Carrington -v- South Essex Partnership - NHS Foundation Trust (Southend County Court, 2014年6月4日-法官Moloney QC)

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-07-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214554741A

J. Mead

{"title":"Trust hairdresser unable to recover for RSI – Lavinia Carrington -v- South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Southend County Court, 4/6/2014 – Judge Moloney QC)","authors":"J. Mead","doi":"10.1177/1356262214554741A","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262214554741A","url":null,"abstract":"up over time. This, in the view of the judge, was helpful. From the moment of the first telephone call the glass started filling and kept being ‘topped up’ until eventually it overflowed in April 2010 when Mr Harris went to see his GP. The evidence of Professor Longson was generally to be preferred to that of Dr Elves. Held: The evidence did not support Dr Elves’ view that the claimant’s injury was a result of one incident. There were a number of factors, including: initial worry following the first telephone call; frustration and not being able to get home more quickly; being told of the gravity of the situation at hospital; seeing Mrs Harris in the Intensive Care Unit; the effect generally on family life and in particular on his relationship with his wife; the feelings of guilt which he had to deal with; and anger felt towards the Trust. It was impossible to conclude that there had been one single shocking event. Accordingly, this claim did not fall within the criteria for recovery laid down in Alcock and would be dismissed. Wendy Owen (instructed by Graystons) appeared for the claimant. Yaqub Rahman (instructed by Hill Dickinson) appeared for the Trust.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"20 1","pages":"91 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262214554741A","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65477014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The medical innovation bill: Will parliament sleepwalk into danger for patients and access to justice? 医疗创新法案:议会是否会梦游，给病人和诉诸司法的机会带来危险?

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-07-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214545923

P. Walsh

{"title":"The medical innovation bill: Will parliament sleepwalk into danger for patients and access to justice?","authors":"P. Walsh","doi":"10.1177/1356262214545923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262214545923","url":null,"abstract":"Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill (also known as the ‘Saatchi Bill’) had its second reading in the House of Lords on 27 June and at the time of writing is about to start the committee stage. It purports to encourage innovative medical treatment by removing the fear of litigation. In my view, the Bill is both unnecessary and poses a grave threat to both patient safety and access to justice. The level of debate so far has been disappointing, but once peers appreciate the seriousness of what is being proposed and its (hopefully) unintended consequences, I am hopeful that it will receive proper scrutiny. The Bill is based on what most serious commentators seem to agree is a completely false premise – that innovative and potentially life-saving treatment is being denied to patients because of doctors’ fear of clinical negligence litigation. Lord Saatchi has failed to provide any evidence to back his assertion that this is the case, whereas those who are in the best position to know, including the likes of the NHS Litigation Authority, the Medical Defence Union, and the British Medical Association, all confirm that there is no evidence of such a problem. If treatment is refused, it is likely that this is either because the NHS will not fund the treatment, or simply because the doctor does not think it is the right treatment or safe. However, the Bill ignores all of that and would sweep away current definitions of negligence. It would allow an individual doctor to carry out any treatment provided that the patient consents to it, even if this flies in the face of all the evidence and advice from experts. The Bill has been presented by Lord Saatchi and his considerable publicity machine as if it is all about providing a last chance for cancer patients who have exhausted all evidence-based treatment options. However, that is not the case. As was confirmed in the debate in the Lords, as currently worded the changes would apply to any kind of medical treatment, including cosmetic treatment. All the doctor would need to do to be in the clear is persuade the patient and to ‘consult’ others (not to get approval from anyone). This has serious patient safety implications. Anyone who is familiar with the case of Dr Ian Paterson who damaged scores of women in the Midlands whom he persuaded to agree to his own variation of breast surgery can see how getting consent from patients is not a sufficient safeguard on its own. The strongest voice of reason in the Lords debate came from cross-bench peer Baroness Masham, who is a longstanding advocate of patients’ rights. As well as the threat to patient safety, she pointed out that the Bill would leave patients who have been harmed by negligent treatment (as we would define it now) without any redress. This is something which supporters of the Bill and many of the peers who took part in the debate do not even seem to have recognised as something worth worrying about. She challenged Lord Saatchi for evidence to support ","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"9 1","pages":"81 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262214545923","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65476961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Securing patient safety through quality assurance in a mixed economy of healthcare: The role of accreditation 通过医疗保健混合经济中的质量保证来确保患者安全:认证的作用

Clinical risk Pub Date : 2014-07-01 DOI: 10.1177/1356262214542520

D. Cochrane

引用次数: 5