Project title
An examination of the factors that predict litigation where failure of informed consent is the primary cause.
Country
UK
Background
The frequency of litigation associated with informed consent for surgery and other interventional procedures has changed over time and varies between NHS providers. The variation between NHS providers is significant and unlikely to be explained by chance or case-mix alone. Understanding this unexplained variation may highlight deficiencies in the consent process and allow informed consent to be improved and standardised.
Summary
The aim of this research is to enhance our understanding of the causes of litigation claims within the NHS and why the number of claims varies over time, and across clinical specialties and NHS providers. We will explore the data on NHS litigation claims that have occurred due to a failure in the process of consent.
Interviews with clinicians will be conducted to help interpret the findings of the analysis and provide insight into consent processes in practice.
Outcome
By identifying predictors of warranted and unwarranted variation in litigation, we can understand why the consent process fails, and in what situations informed consent is most likely to fail. This could result in targeted interventions to reduce avoidable failures of informed consent in high-risk clinical situations, as well as interventions to improve the quality and standardisation of informed consent more generally.
Not only do we anticipate that this will improve the patient experience, but we also hope that this will reduce the burden of litigation, including workplace-associated stress for healthcare professionals.