Health Service Commissioner : second report for session 1977-78 : investigations completed December 1977-March 1978.

  • Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.
Date:
1978
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : second report for session 1977-78 : investigations completed December 1977-March 1978. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    53/184 (page 51)
    claim from the complainant was submitted by the Authority to the legal adviser at the Regional Health Authority who advised that the Authority should not pay the cost of the dental treatment as he was of the opinion that there had not been any negligence by the staff involved. 5. I have examined the relevant correspondence which shows that after the sector administrator received the complainant’s first letter he replied to tell her that he was making enquiries and he requested her to submit a quotation from her dentist. On the same day he wrote to the medical staff involved, a medical assistant and an anaesthetist, to ask them for their observations, at the same time acknowledging receipt from them of a completed accident report dated 20 August. The observations from the medical staff formed the basis of the Authority’s comments to me (paragraph 4). ' 6. The papers on the case including the quotation were passed to the district administrator who discussed them with the district finance officer. The latter thought that if the Authority was considered liable for the accident a dental repair should be carried out with National Health Service resources and suggested that the views of the legal adviser should be obtained and on 6 October 1976 all the papers were sent to him. He was asked if the hospital was liable to pay compensation. After consulting the medical assistant’s medical defence society the legal adviser gave the assistant administrator a suggested reply to the complainant, which was sent to her on 6 January 1977. 7. The medical assistant told my officer that the accident report, although dated 20 August 1976, had not been completed at the time due to an oversight. It was not in fact sent to the sector administrator until after the complaint had been received. He also explained that a rubber gag was always used to protect patients’ teeth during ECT. In spite of this precaution there was always a danger of teeth breaking, although it was a rare occurrence. Before giving ECT, there- fore, he examined each patient’s mouth and if he saw an obviously loose or weak tooth which he thought might be damaged during the treatment he would refer the patient to his or her dentist. The complainant’s tooth which later broke would have been subjected to a fair amount of pressure during the ECT. It had looked reasonably sound when he had first looked at it but when it was examined after it had broken it was found to be decayed inside. He said it would not have broken if it had been in a healthy condition. Both the anaesthe- tist and the sister who had been present confirmed to my officer that the broken tooth was found to be in a very poor condition. The complainant’s dentist when asked for his comments told my officer that when he had last seen the tooth in July 1976 it was in ‘pretty fair condition’. 8. The district administrator was not available for interview but the assistant district administrator told my officer it was normal policy to obtain legal advice on claims where there was some doubt as to liability. And because there was found to be no liability he had not thought that an ex-gratia payment was appropriate. The legal adviser, when interviewed, said that the Authority was correct in sending the claim to him. Area health authorities in the region usually got in touch with him about claims and always did so when a doctor was involved. After the medical defence society had told him there had been no - negligence on the part of the medical assistant and he had agreed with them the |