What can reasonably be expected of junior doctors

22 May 2017 by

FB v. Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 334, 12 May 2017, Court of Appeal – read judgment

All the advocates in this case were from 1 Crown Office Row, Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC for the claimant/appellant FB, and John Whitting QC and Alasdair Henderson for the hospital. None of them were involved in the writing of this post.

FB fell ill with meningitis when she was just one. The illness was diagnosed too late, and she suffered brain damage. This appeal was against the judge’s dismissal of the claim against the hospital, where she was seen, some time before she was admitted and the infection treated. All agreed that avoiding the time between being seen and being admitted would have led to the brain damage being avoided. 

But should the junior doctor have picked up enough about her condition to admit her?

The facts

A little after 0400, FB’s mother phoned the out of hours service, as a result of which a triage nurse phoned the ambulance service, and said that FB had a temperature of up to 40C, was rolling her eyes, and her breathing was a bit erratic. The paramedics arrived swiftly, and mother gave them the same information. The ambulance arrived at the hospital at 0450, and FB was seen by the junior Senior House Officer at 0520.

For whatever reason, the SHO, Dr Rushd, did not elicit the information which had been passed on to the triage nurse and the ambulance service. This case turned on why this was. The SHO accepted that, had she been told this, she would have referred FB to the paediatricians, who would in all probability have treated her promptly. But the SHO’s examination described an apparently well child – that was the conundrum for the judge.

The oddity was that in the course of an otherwise full note Dr Rushd did not record why the parents brought FB in. The judge concluded that a consultant would have elicited this, but that it was not substandard for Dr Rushd not to have done so. Hence, the claim was dismissed by the judge.

The Court of Appeal, in Thirlwall LJ’s judgment, accepted that the judge seems to have conflated two expectations of an SHO, (1) what she might have reasonably been expected to pick up on examination, and (2) what she might have picked up on taking a history.

The upshot was that the CA decided that, contrary to the judge, the SHO should have elicited the eye-rolling history, in which case liability established.

History-taking is not some algorithmic process (nor is cross-examination by an advocate, and if it tries to be, it often falls flat on its face, because the witness says something deeply unexpected). It very much depends upon the first answer, where the doctor goes with the second question, and the second answer, where the third question goes etc etc. So lots of senior officials in NICE cannot prescribe that A question must be followed by B, and B by C.

But, all that said, it (to an outsider to the case) does rather speak for itself that the SHO should have got out of the parents what it was that caused them to get up at 03-something in the morning to take their child into hospital.

So the CA reversed the judge’s decision and found for FB in negligence.

The law

Jackson LJ, a renowned professional negligence lawyer in practice, added an interesting judgment, agreeing with Thirlwall LJ, but expanding on the issue posed by a learner doctor being the one in the firing line.

Do you judge their performance by the fact that they are a learner, or that the NHS is employing them as a doctor? The classic case in the law generally is the learner driver who was judged by the standards of a competent and experienced driver. Bit unfair on them, but equally unfair on the rest of the world by whom they might be injured, as they judder or weave or speed their way in the general direction of competence.

The key case on this is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1987] 1 QB 730.  The CA held that a hospital doctor should be judged by the standard of skill and care appropriate to the post which he/she was fulfilling, for example the post of junior houseman in a specialised unit. That involves leaving out of account the particular experience of the doctor or their length of service. So if the NHS makes them do something which is above their pay grade, then so be it: if someone is injured thereby, then it is not unreasonable to expect the NHS to pay for it.

As Jackson LJ put it at [60]

Thus in professional negligence, as in the general law of negligence, the standard of care which the law requires is an imperfect compromise. It achieves a balance between the interests of society and fairness to the individual practitioner.

He supported the decision finding the SHO negligent – but not without sympathy with the plight of junior doctors. They

 work long hours under considerable pressure. They are often involved in life and death decisions. The pressures can be even greater when they are working all night, as Dr Rushd was here. If mistakes are made, it is devastating for the patient and it is expensive for the NHS trust. Doctors, however, are human. Even good and conscientious doctors may, from time to time, fall short. That is not a reason to lose heart or (even worse) to abandon medical practice. Those who have learnt from past mistakes often have even more to offer.

Let NHS managers and the ministers who make the macro-decisions about the NHS read and think about this. Part of the problem has been to ignore the risk of massive damages liabilities in the pursuit of cost-cutting. Each brain damage case in which it is found liable costs the NHS many millions of pounds.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. A doctor of medicine, irrelevant of his experience or payscale, must be competent.
    This case, being an emergency should have automatically identified an experienced/appropriate professional who would have made accurate diagnosis in the first instance.
    The NHS therefore has been proved unprofessional and failed this child/family.
    Therefore is responsible.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: