Search

While trust is seen as central to most social relations, most writers, including sociologists of science, assume that modern trust relations – especially those in regulatory relationships – tend towards the impersonal. Drawing on ethnographic material from one kind of scientific oversight body – research ethics committees based in the UK NHS – this paper argues that interpersonal trust is crucial to regulatory decision-making and intimately bound up with the way in which these oversight bodies work, and that as such they build on, rather than challenge, the trust-based nature of the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Healthcare is a highly regulated environment. This has driven what could be characterized as a papersafe approach, whereby organizations are required to demonstrate to a multiplicity of regulators, inspectorates and accrediting bodies that they are paper safe. However, for many organizations, this has not produced a system which is actually patient safe; rather it has in practice operated as a parallel system that does not reflect the true state of safety. This project looks at a quality improvement and patient safety programme and critically asks the question of whether it is flawed because of failure to address issues surrounding Doctors and cultural change. We used Johnson & Schole's cultural web framework to explore the attitudes of junior doctors towards a patient safety and quality improvement programme. Data collection was through the use of focus groups backed up with quantitative data from a web based questionnaire survey. It has been demonstrated that Doctors represent a dominant sub-culture within the NHS and their beliefs, attitudes and value are often at odds or unrecognized by senior healthcare managers. Unless the cultural differences are adequately addressed then transformational change projects such as 'Best and Safest Care' are unlikely to succeed. A better understanding of the organizational context allows for more appropriate change interventions to be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores what role lawyers can play in contributing to learning from those incidents that result in a litigation claim. Specifically the authors consider what role the NHSLA has played and should be playing in improving patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical authorities have historically either been silent or circumspect about the role of candour in clinical relationships. Hippocrates told doctors to abstain from doing harm, not entertaining the possibility that they might be negligent, while in 1847 the American Medical Association declared that doctors have: ‘a sacred duty … to avoid all things which have a tendency to discourage the patient and depress his spirits’. Being candid about an injurious mistake in the course of treatment would no doubt discourage even the worldliest of 19th century patients. However, in recent years, the focus has shifted: doctors in 21st century have an obligation to disclose even the most depressing of mistakes. This modern ‘duty of candour’ is found in a mish-mash of moral principles, regulatory guidelines and contractual agreements but following the Francis Report it will be buttressed by statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents several case studies related to maternity claims. It states that in one of the cases a sonographer wasn't able to identify fetal bladder and later the baby was born with bladder exstrophy. It mentions that in another case a woman claimed disabling fecal incontinence due to a third-degree tear during delivery. It highlights that in another case a woman claimed that she was not advised properly by a hospital about uterine rupture due to labor induction.