Article Text
Abstract
Healthcare professionals are expected to deliver care that is consistent with clinical guidelines. In this article, we show that the English courts are increasingly willing to be persuaded by written guidelines when determining the standard of care in cases of alleged clinical negligence. This reflects a wider shift in the approach taken by courts in a number of common law jurisdictions around the world. However, we argue that written guidelines are still only one element that courts should consider when determining the standard of care. It is possible to deliver perfect care that deviates from professional guidelines and even to deliver negligent care by uncritically following a guideline that is flawed. We further argue that written guidelines are relevant beyond defining the accepted standard of care. This is because the decision to deviate from a guideline suggests the existence of multiple approaches that should be discussed with patients as part of ensuring informed consent. It is therefore likely that written guidelines will become an even more prominent feature of the medicolegal landscape in future years.
- policy guidelines/inst. review boards/review cttes
- informed consent
- negligence
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- ‘Bolam’ to ‘Montgomery’ is result of evolutionary change of medical practice towards ‘patient-centred care’
- Quality in health care: a role for the law?
- How does evidence based guidance influence determinations of medical negligence?
- The Supreme Court’s decision in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board: Does it condone healthcare injustice?
- NICE head injury guidelines: review of the legal mandate
- Deprescribing: is the law on your side?
- The US Public Health Service “treating tobacco use and dependence clinical practice guidelines” as a legal standard of care
- Regulation of biomedical research in Africa
- Do guidelines have legal implications?
- The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y