Clinical negligence and the GMC and NMC

Clinical negligence and the GMC and NMC

I have seen many patients or relatives who are baffled as to why the GMC or NMC do not necessarily get involved when there has been a compensation pay-out related to clinical negligence. In some cases, their bewilderment is justified, but in many cases they misunderstand both the implications of clinical negligence and the role of the these professional regulatory bodies.

The tort of clinical negligence requires in short the proof of a failure to meet the duty of care which has caused an injury. This does not entail that any individual was failing in their professional duty as such. Further, where a simple error is the cause of the injury, this is not something that requires censure by the GMC or NMC. This does not preclude local action, which is the first resort for complainants. This route has been emphasized by both the GMC and NMC as the number of complaints per annum has increased.

Errors of judgment are inevitable where difficult decisions are being made on a daily basis. Lord Denning was of the opinion that doctors should not be liable for "errors of clinical judgment". Later jurists have not been so deferential to the medical profession, applying the same principles as other torts. The way to achieve openness and improvement of healthcare is not by increasing the sanctions for clinical negligence, but by routinizing the investigation of clinical negligence.