Investigating what caused the death or serious harm of a patient (causation)
We take it extremely seriously when patients suffer harm, and recognise that past actions which led to death or serious injury could undermine the reputation of nurses, midwives or nursing associates.
However, we need to balance this with our need to help keep patients safe by avoiding a culture of blame or cover up. This means we do not punish nurses, midwives and nursing associates for making genuine clinical mistakes if there is no longer a risk to patient safety, and they have been open about what went wrong and can demonstrate that they have learned from it.
When we investigate and present these types of fitness to practise cases, we should focus on whether the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is likely to put patients at risk of harm in the future.
This will very often involve deciding whether or not a nurse, midwife, nursing associate or their team has put patients at risk of harm in the past. However, focusing on what harm resulted from a past incident won’t help us understand how likely it is that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate may repeat the conduct or failings that first caused the concern.
For this reason, we’ll only focus on whether the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s clinical failings caused the death or serious injury of a patient if it's clear that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate deliberately chose to take an unreasonable risk with the safety of patients or service users in their care.
Before gathering evidence about whether or not the clinical failing did cause or contribute to death or serious harm, there would need to be evidence that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate:
- was aware that something they were about to do could put the safety and wellbeing of others at risk
- was aware that it was unreasonable to take the risk, and
- chose to take the risk.
In these circumstances, there is either a clear connection between the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s state of mind, how they acted, and any harm they caused. These principles apply to individual clinical decisions, as well as decisions taken in the management of a healthcare setting.
On the other hand, if a nurse, midwife or nursing associate made a genuine clinical mistake which led to a patient suffering harm, we would not say that the outcome makes the case more serious. This is because it doesn’t tell us anything about how likely the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is to make similar mistakes in the future.
For example, where a nurse, midwife or nursing associate made a genuine clinical mistake during a course of treatment that ended with a patient’s death or serious injury, we can refer to the outcome, but only if it’s relevant as background context.
When we present cases like this, we would make clear that we’re only referring to the serious injury or death of the patient as part of the background because it would be artificial to hide this from decision makers. We would be very clear we’re not saying that the nurse, midwife, or nursing associate’s conduct caused the death or serious harm, and we would be clear that the death or harm should not be used as a reason to decide that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s fitness to practise is impaired.
- Download
- Email Page
- Last Updated: 24/10/2018
Want to download and print whole sections of this FtP library? Visit the downloads page.
FtP library
-
Understanding Fitness to Practise
- Aims and principles for fitness to practise
- Allegations we consider
- How we determine seriousness
- Why we screen cases
- When we use interim orders
- Investigations
- Examining cases
- How we manage cases
- Meetings and hearings
- Resolving cases by agreement
- What sanctions are and when we might use them
-
Taking account of context
- Taking account of context - overview
- 1: We’ll approach cases on the basis that most people referred to us are normally safe
- 2: We’ll seek to build an accurate picture about the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s practising history
- 3: We’ll always carefully consider evidence of discrimination, victimisation, bullying or harassment
- 4: Where risks are caused by system and process failures, we’ll concentrate on the action we can take to help resolve the underlying issues
- 5: In cases where a nurse, midwife or nursing associate was required to use their professional judgement we’ll respond proportionately
- 6: Evidence of steps the nurse, midwife or nursing associate has taken to address serious concerns caused by a gap in knowledge or training or personal context factors
- 7: We’ll always look into whether group norms or culture influenced an individual’s behaviour before taking action
- 8: Where an incident has occurred because of cultural problems, we’ll concentrate on taking action to minimise the risk of the same thing happening again
- What context factors we think are important to know about when considering a case
- Our culture of curiosity
- Decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and Disclosure Scotland
- Insight and strengthened practice
- Engaging with your case
-
Screening
-
Our overall approach
- Our overall approach - overview
-
The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions
- The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions - overview
- Do we have a written concern about a nurse, midwife or nursing associate on our register?
- Is there evidence of a serious concern that could require us to take regulatory action to protect the public
- Is there clear evidence to show that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is currently fit to practise?
- Clinical advice
- Referrals to other regulators
- Referrers that wish to remain anonymous
- Whistleblowing
- A decision not to take any further action at this time
- Determining the regulatory concern
- Cases that may involve incorrect or fraudulent entry
-
Our overall approach
- Interim Orders
- Investigations
- Case Examiners
-
Preparing for the FtP Committee
- Reviewing cases after they are referred to the FtPC
-
Drafting charges
- Why do we have guidance on charges?
- Jargon buster
- General approach
- How a charge becomes final
- Practical drafting issues
- Particular features of misconduct charging
- Drafting charges in health cases
- Other fitness to practise charges
- Multiple allegations
- Drafting charges in incorrect or fraudulent entry cases
- Documents panels use when deciding cases
- Gathering further evidence after the investigation
- Disclosure
- Notice of our hearings and meetings
-
Case management
- Hearing fitness to practise allegations together
- Telephone conferences
- Preliminary meetings
- Considering cases at meetings and hearings
- Removal by Agreement
- Cancelling hearings
- Constitution of panels
- Proceeding with hearings when the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is absent
- Case management during hearings
- Hearings in private and in public
- When we postpone or adjourn hearings
- Supporting people to give evidence in hearings
-
FtP Committee decision making
- Impairment
- Consensual panel determination
- Offering no evidence
- Abuse of process
- Directing further investigation during a hearing
- Evidence
- Making decisions on sexual misconduct
- Making decisions on dishonesty charges and the professional duty of candour
- Agreed removal at hearings
- Deciding on incorrect or fraudulent entry
- Sanctions
-
Reviews
- Reviewing case examiner decisions
- Interim order reviews
-
Substantive order reviews
- Substantive order reviews - overview
- Standard reviews of substantive orders before they expire
- Early review
- Exceptional cases: changing orders with immediate effect at a standard review
- Review of striking-off orders
- New allegations
- Reviewing orders when there may have been a breach
- Reviews where an interim order is in place
- Removal from the register when there is a substantive order in place
- Appeals and restoration