here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
275WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
276WH<br />
[Tom Brake]<br />
for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing the debate and on<br />
lucidly and concisely setting out precisely why the<br />
Government should look carefully at a statutory duty<br />
of candour. I have not heard any effective arguments<br />
against it, but I will come on to some arguments from<br />
opponents. My hon. Friend set out why the duty would<br />
boost public confidence and he rightly pointed out that<br />
an apology—as we have probably all experienced—often,<br />
first, helps to secure closure for a family if a loved one<br />
has been involved in a tragic accident, and, secondly,<br />
can defuse a difficult situation that could end up in the<br />
courts for years afterwards. He has rightly set out the<br />
reasons why a duty of candour is a necessity.<br />
My hon. Friend started by quoting from the Liberal<br />
Democrat manifesto, and I would expect nothing less in<br />
the coalition, so t<strong>here</strong> is no need for me, as a Liberal<br />
Democrat, to do so. He also mentioned that the proposal<br />
has been carried through to the coalition agreement<br />
and, subsequently, into the NHS White Paper, which—<br />
although it perhaps does not contain a proposal as<br />
specific as a duty of candour—certainly makes it clear<br />
that hospitals need to be open about mistakes and<br />
always tell patients if something has gone wrong. One<br />
development to which he did not refer was the fact that<br />
legal aid will no longer be available in cases of clinical<br />
negligence, which I hope the Minister will pick up on in<br />
her response. I wonder whether that will have an impact<br />
and whether that strengthens the case for a duty of<br />
candour.<br />
As I said in my opening remarks, t<strong>here</strong> are opponents<br />
of a duty of candour. A briefing has been sent to<br />
Members by the Medical Protection Society, which is a<br />
“leading provider of comprehensive professional indemnity and<br />
expert advice to…health professionals around the world.”<br />
The briefing states that the society is committed to<br />
promoting openness in health care and supports the<br />
principle in the NHS White Paper that hospitals should<br />
be open about mistakes and always tell patients if<br />
something has gone wrong. However, it goes on to say<br />
that the MPS strongly believes that a change in culture<br />
would be more effective than a statutory duty. However,<br />
I agree with Action against Medical Accidents, which<br />
also briefed me for the debate. It said that perhaps the<br />
MPS is missing the point: it is not a question of a duty<br />
of candour or a change in culture, as it is perfectly<br />
possible to have both. Indeed, the duty of candour is<br />
one way of supporting and underpinning a change of<br />
culture so that health care organisations are always<br />
open and honest with patients when things go wrong.<br />
The MPS says that it has been advocating that change<br />
in culture, and it is true that a number of organisations<br />
have been advocating it for the past 50 years or so, but<br />
the desired change has not happened. I am not sure how<br />
much longer one can wait for it.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is an issue about guidance and about how<br />
seriously organisations take guidance when they are<br />
statutorily required to do other things. T<strong>here</strong> is always a<br />
risk that guidance gets left aside while organisations<br />
focus on statutory duties. As the MPS said, it is correct<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> is a professional duty for doctors and nurses<br />
to be open with patients in the event of a mistake, but<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is a wider issue about t<strong>here</strong> being no statutory<br />
duty on all health care organisations to promote and<br />
support that practice in their organisations. As my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Poole said, the medical professionals<br />
may want to be open but, unfortunately, they are being<br />
advised by managers, who are not subject to the same<br />
professional codes and perhaps believe that less openness<br />
is the best course of action. My hon. Friend referred to<br />
the Stafford case, and, as I understand it, it was a legal<br />
officer who sought to suppress the doctor’s report in<br />
that case. When the General Medical Council was asked<br />
to confirm how many cases it had brought against<br />
a doctor specifically for a breach of this part of its code,<br />
it confirmed that it has not brought a case against a<br />
single one.<br />
My hon. Friend also referred to the very sad case of<br />
Robbie Powell and the sterling efforts that the family<br />
have made. I am pleased to see that Mr Powell has<br />
joined us <strong>here</strong> today.<br />
Mr James Gray (in the Chair): Order.<br />
Tom Brake: I am sure that Mr Powell will be listening<br />
carefully to what is said and reading the remarks in<br />
Hansard later. That family have played a major role<br />
in bringing this issue to our attention and are working<br />
with AvMA to promote what they hope will become<br />
Robbie’s law.<br />
The MPS has provided information that I think<br />
works against its case. Its research shows that, at the<br />
moment, a third of doctors are not prepared to be open<br />
and honest when an accident occurs. If so many doctors<br />
feel constrained from or concerned about being open<br />
when an accident has occurred, it supports the case for<br />
a culture of candour. The MPS also refers to states in<br />
the <strong>United</strong> States w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is a duty of candour and<br />
w<strong>here</strong> it perceives that t<strong>here</strong> may be a difficulty in<br />
enforcing the duty. In his remarks, my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Poole made it clear that the Care Quality<br />
Commission has confirmed that it could and would<br />
enforce a statutory duty, and would be in a position to<br />
do so, if that were part of its regulations.<br />
Another issue that the MPS raised, which we need to<br />
respond to, is that the proposed duty would not include<br />
near misses. It is arguing against the duty of candour,<br />
but at the same time saying that it would be a problem if<br />
near misses were not included. I understand that t<strong>here</strong><br />
is a general agreement that, although it might the norm<br />
for near misses to be reported to the patient, t<strong>here</strong><br />
would be discretion in cases in which reporting a near<br />
miss might cause unnecessary harm. T<strong>here</strong> is recognition<br />
that the near miss issue needs to be addressed carefully.<br />
One important fact is that, whether it is a duty or a<br />
requirement, it must apply to all health care organisations.<br />
If t<strong>here</strong> was one thing in the coalition agreement that<br />
was slightly remiss, it was the fact that it referred only to<br />
hospitals, but t<strong>here</strong> is a wider health body that we need<br />
to include. I am sure that the Minister will clarify in her<br />
response that the duty of candour, or the requirement,<br />
would need to apply not only to the patient but, sadly, if<br />
the patient has died as a result of the accident, more<br />
widely to include family members. It should not be<br />
strictly restricted to the person who had the misfortune<br />
of suffering the accident.<br />
Dr Pugh: My hon. Friend mentions hospitals, but<br />
does he not accept that t<strong>here</strong> are severe diagnostic<br />
failures at primary care level? Failures to refer can<br />
seriously imperil life, so they, too, need to be encompassed<br />
in the duty of candour.