What Is Negligence In Health Care

Breach of Duty: if a doctor performs surgery on the wrong patient, they breached their duty by failing to protect the patient.

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

This case is extremely relevant to what is known as the four D’s of negligence; duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages. Duty is when a doctor and a patient have formed a relationship and said doctor has taken on the responsibility of taking care of the patient. Dereliction or failure to perform a duty, there must be some kind of proof that the doctor somehow neglected the doctor neglected the patient. Direct cause, there must be some kind of proof that what happened to the patient was a direct cause of how the doctor conducted himself or his failure to act which resulted in injury. Damages a patient must prove that harm was incurred by the direct result of the physicians actions.

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US, right behind heart disease and cancer. More than 200,000 people die annually as a result of diagnostic mistakes and negligence by healthcare professionals (Washingtonpost, 2016). In the healthcare industry, even the smallest mistakes and oversight could lead to severe consequences for both the patient and professionals. A healthcare professional would be held liable for any discrepancies that causes harm. The following case will analyze the ethical issue and negligence that lead to the death of an elderly woman.

This case clearly demonstrates an unsafe act that occurred due to Dr. Ben’s negligence. Although, he later realized his mistake, and was able to correct it before it resulted in a harm to the patient. According to James reason, harm is caused by a series of systemic failures in the presence of hazard. The Swiss cheese model is used to demonstrate how several latent conditions could eventually lead to a harm in patient safety.

The NHS Litigation Authority is now responsible for claims of clinical negligence, with trusts in England belonging to the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (CNST) run by the NHSLA; with the current structure providing indemnity for all those employed by the NHS; whereby ‘NHS employers are ordinarily responsible for the negligent acts of their employees where these occur in the course of the NHS employment’ (NHSLA, 2011). It could be argued that because doctors are no longer individually liable for their actions, this could invoke a reduced standard of care. In spite of this, Towse & Danzon (1999) suggest that with the assumption that an employer is at a better position to mitigate risk than its employees; this move to ‘enterprise liability’ should further improve deterrence. Tappan (2005) adds that adopting enterprise liability helps deterrence by giving hospitals incentives to gather data and eliminate errors; and due to the heightened financial risk, to identify and deal with doctors providing inefficient treatment. This is supported by NHS policy, which states that if it is deemed appropriate to do so, a Trust may ‘take disciplinary action against the individual responsible for the negligence which caused the harm’ (NHS, 2005). Since the NHSLA also provides incentives, such as discounts ‘to hospitals that achieve certain

Healthcare providers should not be exempt from allegations of committing intentional torts. “The classic intentional tort in medical practice is forcing unwanted medical care on a patient ("Intentional Torts," n.d.).” Intentional torts can meet the requirements for civil and criminal action due to the nature in which the act was accomplished, and its qualified deliberate intent. To successfully sue another person for an intentional tort, intent, acting, and actual cause all have to be present (Legal Dictionary, n.d.).

A second issue is malpractice. Malpractice issues are always present in an unstable environment where patients will seek to remedy an incident if they feel they have been harmed (Hamric, 2009). It is important to always act in a reasonable way as a health care clinician but unfortunately there are always those who are negligent in their actions as practitioners.

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

This duty was then breached. Either care was not administered, or it was ministered improperly. The quality of the care is established through the testimony of expert testimony from other doctors.

It is human nature to make mistakes; however, mistakes that cause harm to someone else could be considered negligence. In the case with Mr. Benson in the Neighborhood Newspaper article, a mistake was made that was irreversible. He went into the hospital to have his leg amputated, and the doctor amputated the wrong leg. The question is was the doctor negligent in his practice? Is the amputation of the wrong leg considered to be malpractice on the doctor’s part? This paper will differentiate between negligence, gross negligence, and malpractice. After differentiating between these terms, it will be determined if the doctor operating on Mr. Benson was considered to be negligent, gross negligent or was this mistake malpractice.

Medical malpractice happens when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, perform negligence through their practice and causes an injury to a patient, it may be the result of mistakes in diagnosis, management and after care or health management. (Podgers, 2007)

The negligence of this incident had a negative impact on the patient’s family members. Approximately 25% of cases involving medical negligence involve poor nursing care. Another negative aspect was patient’s family follow up was poor resulting in lack of importance highlighted on the pressure wounds. Ashley (2003) states nurses can be sued for malpractice, this means he or she is being sued for “negligence”. Furthermore, the nursing health professionals can lose its credibility among a community as they failed to provide a holistic care for the patient. However, a positive outcome was nurses were able to reflect among this evidence based practice to assist in better quality in patient

     If what the person in question did met the requirements of what the standard of care calls for, then there has been no account of negligence. There are four main points that actually make up negligence. There must first be a situation in which the standard of care must be given under the given circumstances. Failing to follow the standard of care begins the case of negligence. After not satisfactorily completing the standard, there is an apparent setup for harm to the patient resulting from this failure to meet the requirements of care. When an injury is inflicted on the patient, that relates to the standard of care being violated, and that seals the case. Those are the four ingredients needed to complete a case of negligence (Cazalas 18).

In brief, ‘Standard of care’ is defined as the breach of duty. Legally this term seems to be confusing always, as it depends on the practical application of care in a daily practice. Currently, in the medical malpractice, the legal definition of the standard of care has been changed due to two specific cases of the past. The first case of T.J. Hooper (owner of a tugboat), who has been sued by the owner of the badges for not taking necessary precautions while at sea has been held responsible as the courts declared precautions are imperative although not recommended universally. This first case served as a support for the second case where an ophthalmologist (Carey), has been held responsible for the loss of