Our exploration of the judicial resolution of patient safety incidents has so far covered the following topics:

The non-judicial resolution of patient safety incidents

Why do patients actually sue their doctors after adverse events?

How to avoid litigation from patient safety incidents

This very brief but important post completes this exploration and it focuses on the three criteria that determine if a negligence claim against a physician is likely to succeed. The three factors were discussed by Gerard Panting in his article titled How to avoid being sued in clinical practice; there, he listed the three criteria on which successful negligence claims rest as:

• • The patient was owed ‘a duty of care‘ by the doctor
  • The was a breach of the duty of care
  • The patient suffered harm because of the breach

Panting also explained that in England and Wales, the legal marker for a breach of the duty of care is referred to as the Bolam test; this stipulates that:

• • The ‘care must be provided in accordance with accepted medical practice
  • The accepted medical practice is determined ‘by experts in the field’

We have now concluded our review of the judicial and non-judicial resolution of patient safety incidents, and we will proceed next to the dilemma of the second victim of patient safety incidents.