Mind the Information Gap

Quantifying the Courts’ Role in Responding to Patient Harm, 1989 to 2013

Wendy BONYTHON, Bruce ARNOLD

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

An empirical critique of Australia’s medical indemnity “crisis” challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a “crisis” in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did “caus” the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)549-571
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of Law and Medicine
Volume25
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Patient Harm
Malpractice
Insurance
Legal Liability
Health

Cite this

@article{3702a4e3f4924c56a18cdd6a4c7de56e,
title = "Mind the Information Gap: Quantifying the Courts’ Role in Responding to Patient Harm, 1989 to 2013",
abstract = "An empirical critique of Australia’s medical indemnity “crisis” challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a “crisis” in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did “caus” the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.",
keywords = "Allied health, Australia, Crime, Legislative reform, Liability, Malpractice, Negligence, Occupational discipline, Patient harm, Practitioner",
author = "Wendy BONYTHON and Bruce ARNOLD",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "549--571",
journal = "Journal of Law and Medicine",
issn = "1320-159X",
publisher = "Thomson Head Office",
number = "2",

}

Mind the Information Gap : Quantifying the Courts’ Role in Responding to Patient Harm, 1989 to 2013. / BONYTHON, Wendy; ARNOLD, Bruce.

In: Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2018, p. 549-571.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mind the Information Gap

T2 - Quantifying the Courts’ Role in Responding to Patient Harm, 1989 to 2013

AU - BONYTHON, Wendy

AU - ARNOLD, Bruce

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - An empirical critique of Australia’s medical indemnity “crisis” challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a “crisis” in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did “caus” the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.

AB - An empirical critique of Australia’s medical indemnity “crisis” challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a “crisis” in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did “caus” the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.

KW - Allied health

KW - Australia

KW - Crime

KW - Legislative reform

KW - Liability

KW - Malpractice

KW - Negligence

KW - Occupational discipline

KW - Patient harm

KW - Practitioner

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052179677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 549

EP - 571

JO - Journal of Law and Medicine

JF - Journal of Law and Medicine

SN - 1320-159X

IS - 2

ER -