This does not mean the GP is not protected against handling the claim. It means that, as currently, the legal team handling the claim will determine the most appropriate strategy to manage the claim. If a claim is not going to stand up in court, it is cheaper to settle it as quickly as possible to contain costs.
Clinical negligence claims are about compensating patients who've suffered proven (on the balance of probabilities) negligence. It is not about protecting doctors' reputations.
This does not mean that GPs will be left out of pocket. However, they would face very expensive bills for damages and claimant/defence legal costs if they ignored NHS Resolution and took up defending an indefensible case themselves which they then lost in court.
Completely agree that, just like a 'normal birth', 'minor illness' is a retrospective label.
What is odd is that, as a patient, unless one is ill enough to justify an ambulance, one has to book a telephone appointment (1 week wait minimumum at my local surgery), then book another telephone appointment with a noctor-led service (1 week minimum).
That's 2 weeks with no medic (of any type) physically assessing the patient.
I worry that triage and safety-netting is not good enough to avoid significant illness being missed. (I'm waiting to discuss a rheumatoloy/orthopaedic issue and neither the GP nor (unintroduced but I expect they were an 'MSK Admin') asked if my joint was hot or if I felt systemically unwell.)
I'd love to know how many acute conditions are being missed in primary care these days, presumably resulting in worse clinical outcomes and increased litigation.
The rights to sue expert witnesses or report them to GMC already exists.
Also, the fact that their first responsibility is to provide the court with an impartial opinion prevents them from supporting professional conduct that they consider to be negligent.
Permission has been granted to appeal the GMC's success in the High Court, which replaced the MPTS suspension with an erasure decision, not to appeal the conviction.
“important evidence, which was not presented in court,”
Did Dr Beanland attend the trial?
Unless she did and knows this assertion to be true, it is misleading to say so, and surprising that Pulse would publish this article, especially since it incites protest against the GMC.
Look at the law governing medical regulation and you will understand that the GMC was fulfilling its job to protect the reputation of the profession, which could, arguably, be diminished by leaving patients exposed to doctors with convictions for manslaughter.
For an evidence-based, scientific profession, it is astonishing that so many doctors are content to make and repeat assertions that they don’t know to be definitely true.
This a dangerous game of Chinese whispers that threatens to undermine public confidence in the profession. All armchair commentators should consider the factual basis supporting their opinions before sharing them.
As Dr Beanland states, many young doctors and medical students are already very anxious about the potential for criminal charges following medical error. It would therefore seem sensible to retain some perspective here.
The GMC has published guidance for over a decade now on how doctors should raise concerns if they’re worried about patient safety, eg in the face of resource shortfalls. Anyone concerned not to run unreasonable risks should follow it.
"Dr Bawa-Garba actually requested that her e-portfolio reflections were included in the defence’s bundle of evidence, although this did not happen."
Was this in relation to this particular child or her care of other children? The latter would have risked breaching their confidentiality.
If her reason was to explain her treatment of this child, presumably she was able to explain those reflections when giving evidence?
If GP services met patient need, Babylon wouldn't be a threat. As it is, those of us needing antibiotics for, say a UTI that hasn't responded to several days' conservative measures, and who have demanding work responsibilities, can't wait more than a week for an appointment at our local surgery. And I'm afraid out of hours provision is grossly inadequate. Far simpler to speak to Babylon within the hour and have an electronic script sent to the chemist around the corner a couple of hours later, rather than schlepping across London while feeling unwell to wait for hours with people brewing contagious diseases to be seen. Babyon is delivering what a certain demographic wants and thereby freeing up NHS appointments for other people.