Can spinal surgery in England be saved from litigation: a review of 978 clinical negligence claims against the NHS
- 204 Downloads
The aim of this study is to evaluate the true incidence of all clinical negligence claims against spinal surgery performed by orthopaedic spinal surgeons and neurosurgeons in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, including both open and closed claims.
This study was a retrospective review of 978 clinical negligence claims held by NHS Resolution against spinal surgery cases identified from claims against ‘Neurosurgery’ and ‘Orthopaedic Surgery’. This category included all emergency, trauma and elective work and all open and closed cases without exclusion between April 2012 and April 2017.
Clinical negligence claims in spinal surgery were estimated to cost £535.5 million over this five-year period. There is a trend of both increasing volume and estimated costs of claims. The most common causes for claims were ‘judgement/timing’ (512 claims, 52.35%), ‘interpretation of results/clinical picture’ (255 claims, 26.07%), ‘unsatisfactory outcome to surgery’ (192 claims, 19.63%), ‘fail to warn/informed consent’ (80 claims, 8.13%) and ‘never events’ including ‘wrong site surgery’ or ‘retained instrument post-operation’ (26 claims, 2.66%). A sub-analysis of 3 years including 574 claims revealed the most prevalent pathologies were iatrogenic nerve damage (132 claims, 23.00%), cauda equina syndrome (CES) (131 claims, 22.82%), inadequate decompression (91 claims, 15.85%), iatrogenic cord damage (72 claims, 12.54%), and infection (51 claims, 8.89%).
The volume and costs of clinical negligence claims is threatening the future of spinal surgery. If spinal surgery is to continue to serve the patients who need it, most thorough investigation, implementation and sharing of lessons learned from litigation claims must be systematically carried out.
KeywordsLitigation Negligence Malpractice Medicolegal
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.No author listed Opinions of The lords of appeal for judgement in the cause Chester (Respondent) v. Afshar (Apellant): Chester v Afshar. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd041014/cheste-1.htm. Accessed 2 Apr 2018
- 6.No author listed MDU—The Campaign. https://www.themdu.com/about-mdu/fair-compensation/the-campaign. Accessed 2 Apr 2018
- 7.Quraishi NA, Potter IR (2012) Litigation in spine surgery—analysis of 10 years data from the NHSLA. In: Orthopaedic proceedings. pp 94–B:SUPP_X, 039–039Google Scholar
- 8.Machin JT, Briggs TWR (2014) Litigation in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. J Trauma Orthop 02:32–38Google Scholar
- 9.Evans C, Labour MP, Flint C, et al (2017) House of commons committee of public accounts managing the costs of clinical negligence in hospital trustsGoogle Scholar
- 10.NHS Resolution (2016) Annual report and accounts 2016/17Google Scholar
- 13.NHS England (2015) Revised never events policy and frameworkGoogle Scholar
- 14.Getting it Right First Time. http://gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk. Accessed 2 Apr 2018