Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLiddell, Kathleen
dc.contributor.authorSkopek, Jeffrey M
dc.contributor.authorLe Gallez, Isabelle
dc.contributor.authorFritz, Zoe
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-17T00:30:21Z
dc.date.available2021-12-17T00:30:21Z
dc.date.issued2022-02-23
dc.identifier.issn0967-0742
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/331561
dc.description.abstractDiagnosis lies at the heart of the medical encounter, yet it has received much less attention than treatment. It is widely assumed that negligent diagnosis claims should be governed by the Bolam test, but we demonstrate that this is not always the case. First, we disaggregate the diagnostic process into three different acts: forming the diagnosis, communicating it to the patient, and recording it. Second, we consider alternatives to Bolam for defining negligence, including less deferential profession-led standards, patient-led standards, and even a reasonable person standard. Third, bringing together these distinctions-within the diagnostic process, and between standards of care-we reveal the unappreciated complexity of negligent diagnosis. Analysing the standard of care that might apply to the three different acts in the diagnostic process, we identify reasons to think that Montgomery should apply to the communication of a diagnosis. We also argue that even in areas where the law is well-established, such as the application of Bolam to the formation of a diagnosis, challenging questions arise that require further attention. Throughout, the framework and analysis that we develop have significant implications for a set of negligence cases, as well as for medical education, clinical guidelines, and patient care.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust 208213/Z/17/Z. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.' This project was funded by the Wellcome Trust grant number 208213/Z/17/Z.  ZF and ILG are based in The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), University of Cambridge. THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation, an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and healthcare for people in the UK.
dc.publisherOxford University Press (OUP)
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserved
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
dc.titleDifferentiating Negligent Standards of Care in Diagnosis.
dc.typeArticle
dc.publisher.departmentDepartment of Public Health And Primary Care, This Institute
dc.date.updated2021-12-15T10:07:41Z
prism.publicationNameMed Law Rev
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.79014
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-11-11
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1093/medlaw/fwab046
rioxxterms.versionAM
dc.contributor.orcidSkopek, Jeffrey M [0000-0002-7694-1689]
dc.contributor.orcidFritz, Zoe [0000-0001-9403-409X]
dc.identifier.eissn1464-3790
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
pubs.funder-project-idWellcome Trust (208213/Z/17/Z)
cam.issuedOnline2022-01-12
cam.orpheus.successWed Mar 23 10:26:19 GMT 2022 - Embargo updated*
cam.orpheus.counter2
cam.depositDate2021-12-15
pubs.licence-identifierapollo-deposit-licence-2-1
pubs.licence-display-nameApollo Repository Deposit Licence Agreement
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2024-01-12


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record