Review group in Scotland backs no-fault scheme for NHS claims
A panel of experts has backed a Scottish Government plan that could see patients who have suffered loss, injury or damage as a result of healthcare treatment compensated without having to take the NHS to court.
The No-Fault Compensation Review Group – set up in 2009 and led by law and medical ethics expert Professor Sheila McLean – has called for the current adversarial court system to be scrapped in favour of no-fault compensation.
Under the new system, which would be similar to the ones in place in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand, claimants would have to prove that the harm was caused by treatment. However, they would not be required to prove negligence.
The review group identified a number of benefits of a no-fault system, including:
- Fair and adequate compensation for harm suffered
- Quicker rehabilitation, which would no longer need to wait until legal action has been completed
- Broader eligibility criteria than the current system
- Greater scope for the NHS to learn from mistakes so that care can be improved
- More efficient use of public time and money
- Wider access to justice for patients, with the removal of the need to pay legal fees.
The review group also suggested that more patients could have claims resolved under such a system than currently achieve resolution through the courts – “potentially for around the same costs as the NHS currently pays in compensation and legal fees”.
Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said: "The vast majority of the care delivered in our NHS is of the highest quality, but it is important that people who have suffered as a result of clinical mistakes should have some form of redress.
"Nevertheless, it's in no-one's best interests to have that redress delayed because a compensation claim can take years to go through the courts and nor is it in anyone's interests to have precious NHS resources spent on expensive legal fees.”
Accepting the review group’s recommendations, Sturgeon described no-fault compensation as a sensible way to ensure people who have been affected are compensated without tying up either patients or the health service in years of litigation.
Professor McLean said: "It is important that the aim of any compensation scheme should be to facilitate access to justice, provide appropriate compensation for injured patients and ensure proper and timely adjudication of claims.
"The members of the Review Group were clear that the current system is not meeting the needs of patients, and will welcome the Scottish Government announcement."
The Scottish government will now investigate how such a scheme would work in practice, including further analysis of any cost implications.
