Protecting patients' rights in New Zealand

Medicine and Law

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 51-60

  Paterson, R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Code of Consumers' Rights; Complaint resolution; Health and Disability Commissioner; Medical discipline; Medical error; Quality improvement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CERTIFICATION; COMPENSATION; COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL ERROR; NEW ZEALAND; PATIENT RIGHT;

EID: 17844364934     PISSN: 07231393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. A similar model exists in New South Wales, and has been described as co-regulation: Thomas, D. 2004. The co-regulation of medical discipline: Challenging medical peer review. JLM 11, pp 382-389.
2. Studdert, D. and Brennan, D. 2001. No-fault compensation for medical injuries: The prospect for error prevention. JAMA 286(2), pp 217-223.
3. Gray, N. 2004. Reforming the relationship between medicine and the law of tort. JLM 11, pp 324-330.
4. The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001, ss 69 and 32-34.
5. Collection of medical misadventure premiums from registered health professionals is provided for in The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, ss 228-230, but has not occurred in practice.
6. The Code is set out in the Schedule to the Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights) Regulations 1996.
7. Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, s 6.
8. Last year, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found a surgeon not guilty of professional misconduct after he operated on a patient's left kinee, instead of her right knee. "The Tribunal accepts that Dr S's failure to ensure that the correct surgical site had been identified was a most regrettable matter but ... in the particular circumstances such failure did not amount to an offence inviting disciplinary sanction." (Re S, MPDT, 2003). This decision prompted a visiting American surgeon to comment: "You guys in New Zealand are a bunch of virgins. In a wrong-site surgery case we'd be writing a big cheque - and our insurance premium would go way up and our name would be posted on a publicly available website." (Ira Kodner, RACS Conference, 2003.)
9. Mulcahy, L. 2003. Turning Wrongs into Rights (London, Birkbeck College) p 5.
10. The recent publication by the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners of guidelines on "Managing Patient Test Results: Minimising Error" (2003) is a good example of learning from complaints. In light of Commissioner investigations that highlighted a failure by general practitioners to follow up patient test results adequately, I drew attention to the topic in educational columns for a medical journal. This led to extensive discussion among general practitioners, and to consultation and debate by the College of General Practitioners. The Commissioner's Office contributed to the development of guidelines, which are currently being piloted. It is hoped that the result will be a clearer understanding of the extent of a general practitioner's duty of care, and better follow-up for patients.
11. Davis, P. 7 November 2000. "Diseases of Medical Progress"? Three accounts of patient safety and outcome. Inaugural Professorial lecture, University of Otago.