§ Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is yet in a position to publish his report on the operation of the new clinical complaints procedure for hospital patients.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI have today placed copies of a report in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office. This report covers the operation of the procedure up to 31 December 1982.
The Government set up the new procedure for handling complaints about the clinical judgments of doctors in September 1981. The procedure has got off to an encouraging start. Previously, patients who were unhappy with their medical treatment could only get their complaints looked at independently by going to the courts. Many patients and friends who complain are not seeking litigation or compensation but want their complaint properly aired. The new procedure appears to be providing an opportunity for that.
The new procedure means that a patient can have an independent review of a complaint about the clinical judgment of hospital doctors and dentists. The aim is to settle such complaints quickly and, if possible, locally. But if this is not possible a regional medical officer can arrange a review by two independent consultants or "second opinions".
In the first 16 months, regional medical officers have considered 184 cases. "Second opinions" were called in 63 cases, and reviews were completed in 32 of these
In half of these completed cases the "second opinions" identified matters of policy or procedure — often substantial — on which hospital authorities have since made or are considering improvements. "Second opinions" have, in many cases, provided a valuable reassurance to patients or relatives that the patient care and treatment was appropriate and to a proper standard.
The procedure is still at an early stage, and we will continue to watch progress to see whether we have effectively provided patients and relatives with the response to complaints to which they are entitled. But it is already clear that the medical profession has responded constructively. "Second opinions" have given frank and expert assessments, and their colleagues whose actions they have scrutinised have offered full co-operation.
The feedback we have so far received is that most complainants involved in the new procedure have found it helpful. The majority are pleased to have the opportunity of a full and detailed discussion with independent consultants. Where a complaint has not been upheld, most people have appreciated the reason and been grateful for the reassurance that an independent opinion has been provided.