The costly harm of proving medical negligence

SIR – The inconvenient truth is that complications in medicine are inevitable, regardless of the quality of care (Letters, February 5).

It is well known that only a small proportion of patients who sue have actually been victims of negligence. Yet, if complications are inevitable, why must negligence be painstakingly and expensively proved by lawyers, usually against an individual doctor?

Lawyers find individual doctors easier targets than the wider system (usually the source of errors).

To save the NHS, the answer is an independent, non-adversarial panel to review such cases, with no need for lawyers’ fees.

The problem can only be sorted out by a brave government with the help of lawyers. Which is like suggesting turkeys should vote for Christmas.

G F Nash FRCS

Poole, Dorset

SIR – If the NHS was properly funded and thereby staffed (it has one of the lowest doctor-to-patient ratios in western Europe), and long, intensive postgraduate training reintroduced, might not the number and value of clinical negligence claims decrease? Dr JHF Smith

Sheffield, South Yorkshire

SIR – Niall Dickson, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation (Comment, February 2), should focus his efforts on the elimination of negligence with better training and the immediate dismissal of negligent doctors. John Bromley-davenport QC

Malpas, Cheshire

SIR – Imagine if the NHS took the same approach to mistakes as the Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle.

In 1994, after a patient died through being given a wrong injection, the hospital decided that all mistakes must be admitted. This provided the information to improve systems and prevent future mistakes.

The outcome was a 75 per cent reduction in the number of complaints and lawsuits, and a 74 per cent reduction in the hospital’s liability insurance premium. Patrick Barbour

London W4