Search

The UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board imposes a duty on healthcare professionals in relation to information disclosure. The obligation is to take reasonable care to ensure that patients are aware, not just of material risks inherent in any recommended treatment, but of any reasonable alternative treatments. While liability for information non-provision was previously decided according to whether the profession would deem disclosure appropriate, the law now judges the sufficiency of information from a patient's perspective. In doing so, it adopts the approach advocated for Australia in Rogers v Whitaker. However, commentators, in this journal and elsewhere, have expressed concern that the disclosure obligation is unclear. Although Montgomery defines what is 'material' for the purpose of identifying notifiable treatment risks, it offers less guidance as to when alternative treatments will be sufficiently 'reasonable' to warrant disclosure. Through an analysis of Australian and UK case law and examples, this article considers the ambit of a practitioner's duty to discuss alternatives. It concludes that although likely subject to further litigation, the identification of reasonable treatment options requiring disclosure will be influenced by the patient's clinical condition, their prognosis and viable options from a medical perspective, and various non-clinical matters influenced by the test of materiality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The language used by healthcare professionals can have a profound impact on how people living with diabetes, and those who care for them, experience their condition and feel about living with it day‐to‐day. At its best, good use of language, both verbal and written, can lower anxiety, build confidence, educate and help to improve self‐care. Conversely, poor communication can be stigmatizing, hurtful and undermining of self‐care and can have a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes. The language used in the care of those with diabetes has the power to reinforce negative stereotypes, but it also has the power to promote positive ones. The use of language is controversial and has many perspectives. The development of this position statement aimed to take account of these as well as the current evidence base. A working group, representing people with diabetes and key organizations with an interest in the care of people with diabetes, was established to review the use of language. The work of this group has culminated in this position statement for England. It follows the contribution of Australia and the USA to this important international debate. The group has set out practical examples of language that will encourage positive interactions with those living with diabetes and subsequently promote positive outcomes. These examples are based on a review of the evidence and are supported by a simple set of principles. What's new?: The use of language by healthcare professionals can have a profound impact on people living with diabetes.Our working group, which represents people with diabetes and key stakeholders, has developed a set of principles to guide healthcare professionals, with the goal of improving interactions with those living with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]