Anyone ever had need to sue a hospital?

If people can't make money out of it why will anyone try to do the best job
they can?

 

That's more like the answer I'd expect from the hospital because it makes
total (if not moral) sense.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Apology? 2 chances of that. None and **** all.

Even without the "yes" or any other thought, the first thing should be
getting a solicitor, or at least talking to one.

Taking the wife away will cost in both time and money and if she's not able
to work for as long as she expected (due to the **** up) why should Mike pay
for that?

Better to wait until things aren't fresh in the mind eh? Talking to a
solicitor won't hurt anyone but the advice he/she could give could very well
be useful. Things like "Write out a list of things that you deem
unacceptable and just as importantly, *when* these things happened.

I don't see any point in waiting and forgetting when there's no need to. You
can stop any action at any time if you so desire, but "Strike while the iron
is hot" isn't a phrase that came into being for no reason.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

People performing healthcare roles would make money out of it, via
their pay packets. What I'm really against is shareholders making
money out of healthcare - that doesn't benefit anybody requiring
medical treatment, does it?

I'd like to hope a significant number of people work in healthcare for
altruistic reasons as much as to simply take money out of the system.

 

He's not trying to get rid of the insurance based system - he's trying
to make it so that everyone has access to healthcare.

Many of the people that worked for me in California simply could/would
[1] not afford health insurance, even with company subsidisation, and
that meant they ran a gauntlet.

[1] I say 'would' as some of them drove around in hulking great gas
guzzling SUV's which, I'm certain, cost more than their health
insurance would have, so I see that as a choice. Others, usually those
with families, simply didn't have enough disposable income for health
insurance.

FWIW, NL seems to have a better take on it. Health insurance is
*mandatory* - everyone *must* have it. The insurance companies have a
minimum level of cover they must provide, at a somewhat set price
scale. Extra's can be added on as you wish/can afford. The government
subsidises those that cannot afford the basic level through
unemployment, pension etc.

 

You must be busting for a ****!

 

hahaha

 

That's a problem with the governance, not the principle. In practice,
I'm not so sure NI contributions alone could cover the cost of the NHS
and social security.

It's an idea that worked well on the railways.

 

Well they must do because they're not in the job for the money. Have you
seen what the pay rates are for some of the NHS roles?

 

You didn't look very hard

Five on the 1st page of the archive ...
http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hearings/archive/

e.g. http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hearings/archive/index.asp?id=1106

 

No, of course it couldn't. And that is the problem, of course.

Any more completely meaningless, irrelevant and inaccurate comparisons
you'd like to make?

 

No, that one's fine for now.

Competition is a way to make things cheaper, not necessarily better.

 

Mike Barnard said:<<SNIP>>

Coming in late here i know but, has anyone asked what this metre long
guide wire was for in the first place?

My last 6 years as a nurse was as a senior nurse on a surgical ward
caring for exactly these patients, ie hemicolectomy's, bowel resections
etc and before that Intensive care / theatres and recovery.

So, my thoughts are

a)fucking right sue! you'll be told that lessons will be learnt, full
investigations so it doesnt happen again, clinical governance, risk
management etc but it's all basically ass covering etc. OK, i dont
particularly advocate the "shouting from the rooftops" and going to the
papers / mp etc but in my 20 years of experience in the nhs and dealing
with management from a nursing as well as union point of view, the only
thing they will take notice of is money. Its the only place that
matters to them.

b) find out what this wire was for. did your other half need to have an
intravenous feed while in hospital, ie a big 2.5litre bag of milky
white stuff going into a dedicated IV line in her arm? this is the only
line that would have a guide wire that long.

c) who placed the line? where they comptetent? can they prove this ie
is there a signed assessment of skills? certainly id expect any
investigation or lawyer to be starting there.

but back to my first point, SUE!

 

Beav said:

Agreed, at least there wont be one that translates into actually
meaning anything.

Im pretty sure that there is in fact a time limit, i think it used to
be 3 years in the nhs, could be wrong though.

 

I prefer to think of the people putting capital in as investors rather
than shareholders and the whole point of investing your money is to
get a decent return on it.

I doubt if the insurance premiums alone would pay for the purchase of
the private hospitals used by the main players so the money has to
come from investors.

They might do at a very early point in their career but I'd expect
that to have gone within a year or two otherwise they'd satisfy their
need to do good in a country where they're screaming out for trained
hospital staff.

 

Sorry for the delay in coming into this thread - been away for the
weekend.

As you say, you need to know how the wire came to be left in. If it
was a mistake then, yes, you need to know that. However, there is a
possibilty that it was negligence rather than a mistake, and it could
have been more than one member of staff responsible at the time. The
same is true of the later X-Rays.

You won't get damages from either the hospital or the Medical Defence
Union for a mistake. You will, however, if negligence is proved, or
you may get an out-of court settlement.

One potential problem relates to the fact-finding. Any person, but in
particular a doctor, will be a lot more forthcoming in terms of
honesty, soul-searching and genuine efforts to determine exactly what
went wrong, if he/she is assured from the start that they are not
going to be sued. And most hospitals have regular surgical reviews (in
our hospital they were called *Uncle Ed sessions*) where criticism is
open and free within the session but never goes outside it. Leaving a
wire in sounds open-and-shut to lay people such as ourselves, but
nevertheless I include all of this as a pointer that you may need to
decide early on which you would choose if offered the choice between
an honest answer and money.

If it was me I would start simply by writing a formal letter to the
hospital, stating the facts as I knew them, and expressing my
concerns. I wouldn't ask to see the hospital records, because I
wouldn't know what to look for. An expert can look at them as and when
it becomes necessary. Nor, personally, would I see a solicitor until
I'd at least had the first response from the hospital. YMMV of course.

If it eventually transpires that someone has been negligent then don't
hesitate to go for damages. Yes, it comes eventually from the public
purse (via the seven-figure insurance premiums hospitals pay each
year) but I see that as your entitlement - no more and no less. And I
would have said the same when I was still employed as a hospital
accountant!

If you want to go off-list the email at the bottom of my home page
works.

And my heartfelt sympathies to you both.

 

Going back to my statement, top flight hospitals and leading edge technology
kept fresh for decades needs motivated private investors IMHO. But profits
don't need to be unreasonable, 15-20% on capital will be attractive.

Expecting anything run on altruism, public money and civil service type
management to be the best possible service delivery isn't reasonable.

But it is also perfectly possible to build bad private hospitals.

 

I thought it was 5 years

 

Nah, as Ogden says 3 years from the date of the incident unless the
injured party is a minor in which case it's 3 years from their 18th
birthday.

 

Colin Irvine said:

hmm not sure i agree there.
the reasons for the wire being left in are straightforward i'd have
thought.
a) stupiditiy
b) idiocy
c) carelessness

Now all the above are cynical terms for "lack of training" or
"competence" or "i'm a doctor, what i do is right".
Quite common among junior docs unfortunately as they are under pressure
to get a list of things done or else the consultants will bollock them.

this is back to what im saying, there are rarely mistakes in the true
sense, all the above effectively lead to the negligence route.

??? surely they'd be very naive? or am i being over cynical?

And most hospitals have regular surgical reviews (in

if it never leaves the session, isnt that contradictory to the previous
statement of those making a mistake being reassured they wont be sued?

Leaving a

id love to know what these 7 figure insurance premiums are to be honest
as the nhs doesn't actually have insurance premiums at all. ie its not
like they go to liverpool victoria / carole nash / etc for insurance,
its an internal system run by the nhs for the nhs.

as an aside, its not out of the public purse if the doctor responsible
is sued for malpractice and not the hospital itself surely?
not that im trying to justify or not the suing, though personally, i'd
still recommend suing