Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Crim
I just heard on the radio news that the COSHH Regs are to be used to support claims against hospitals for Clinical Negligence.
Does this now raise the profile of health and safety to our benefit or is it another negative aspect for people to criticise health and safety?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze I must admit, I wondered the same this morning. It's to do with the higher standard of proof required in clinical negligence cases. Without a doubt, I would class secondary MRSA infections as a COSHH issue - but then I'm not a COSHH or health-care specialist. Here's a link to the BBC website to familiarise yourself with the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6148546.stm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
If it leads to cleaner hospitals rather than posh office blocks for health authorities, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
It does however beg the question why the HSE have not pursued a section 3 on this matter. If the hospital is not following its infection control regime then it is not conducting its operations in such a manner to prevent risks to the health and safety of persons not in its employ.
From the negligence point of view I think the lawyers have recognised that the MDU etc have now built a formidable set of decided cases that require the ascent of a mountain to overcome. This left of field approach I believe is a bold move to highlight that patient needs cannot be ignored on the basis of costs or poor supervision of cleaning staff or inadequate control measures.
In a sense this may bring both PCTs and NHS trusts to a position of recognising that lack of money is not an excuse to avoid legal responsibilities. I wonder how many of you watched the programme the other night on the postcode health care provision, even legally required treatments under NICE auspices are ignored by certain PCTs if they feel they do not have the cash.
But I am now rambling as it is a sore point currently
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charlie Gunter
Surely the proof required for a successful clinical negligence claim is the same as any other tort of negligence. The chain of causality must be proved on a balance of probabilities.
MRSA is a micro-organism so is covered by COSHH. But even if it were possible to demonstrate a breach of statutory duty, there would still be the need to show that the breach caused the infection and that it wasn't acquired by other means.
I suspect that if it can be demonstrated that COSHH was not being properly adhered to, the balance of probabilities would shift in favour of the litigant. Prosecution would help but is not essential.
I would be interested in other opinions (lawyers welcome).
Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.