PIP Implants: The private healthcare sector should establish a network of ‘medical device liaison officers’ in the wake of the PIP implants scandal, a government review has recommended. The review, led by health minister Lord Howe, said the UK’s Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should work with “the main private healthcare providers” to help set up the network, which would “complement that which exists in the NHS”. Private operators were criticised in the wake of the scandal last December, both for the quality of their data, and the failure of some to offer corrective procedures to former patients with PIP implants. Over 40,000 UK women are thought to have been fitted with the faulty implants since French firm Poly Implant Prothese started trading in 1991.

On March 2, a High Court Judge recommended that a Group Litigation Order should be made so that all claims arising from the use of PIP implants could be co-ordinated. Paul Balen of our Subscribers Freeth Cartwright solicitors was elected to the steering committee of Claimants solicitors. In due course an order will be published setting out a timescale for presenting claims for compensation. If you think you may qualify to claim compensation, please contact:

Paul Balen

Freeth Cartwright LLP

Tel: 0845 050 3289 Mobile: 07767673200

Email: paul.balen@freethcartwright.co.uk

CQC Reports: The Care Quality Commission (CQC) today publishes a further 10 reports from a targeted programme of 150 unannounced inspections of hospitals and care homes that care for people with learning disabilities. The programme is looking at whether people experience safe and appropriate care, treatment and support and whether they are protected from abuse. A national report into the findings of the programme will be published later this year.

Inspections were focused on two outcomes relating to the government’s essential standards of quality and safety: the care and welfare of people who use services, and safeguarding people who use services from abuse.

Inspectors found major concerns at three of ten locations:

Chaseways, run by Cambian Learning   Disabilities Limited

Melling Acres run by Parkcare Homes   (No 2) Limited

The New Barn run by Claremont Clare   Limited. May 10.

Email from Lord Mackay:

On April 25 NEWS reported on the poor quality of debate over LASPO in the House of Lords. Earlier, on March 16, our NEWS section had reported as follows:

14 March 2012

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, report

Column 324

Lord Alton of Liverpool: ... The system as it operated under his stewardship did not take funds away from the claimant when they were successful in litigation. That is surely the difference from the matter before your Lordships' House. When the noble and learned Lord oversaw the system, it was fair and just, and did not raid any of the funds that the [Column 325] claimant was able to receive in compensation. We are merely seeking to maintain the status quo in the way that it operated during his time.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: ... in the system as I introduced it the success fee would be payable by the claimant out of his or her damages.

We brought this to the attention of Members of the House of Lords with a note and received the following email to the Editor:

I have received your note. One of the problems is that there is a lot of propaganda about and the Government in the Lords has the opportunity to answer it. I do know a little about the system and I did make it clear in relation to the Jackson Report that the position was being returned to what I had introduced. I think it is important that the Government has an opportunity to counter mistaken propaganda in public. The elected House has the last word on these  matters but the Lords often raises issues that merit attention  and ultimately secure the agreement of the House of Commons.

Yours sincerely,

James Mackay of Clashfern

We are grateful to Lord Mackay for permission to publish his email. May 2.

Prescribing errors

The University of Nottingham has published a report for the GMC: The PRACtICe Study (Investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice. The study involved examination of 6,048 unique prescription items for 1,777 patients. Prescribing or monitoring errors were detected for one in eight patients, involving around one in 20 of all prescription items. The vast majority of the errors were of mild to moderate severity, with one in 550 items being associated with a severe error. The following factors were associated with increased risk of prescribing or monitoring errors:

male gender, age less than 15 years or greater than 64 years, number of unique medication items prescribed, and being prescribed preparations in the following therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, infections, malignant disease and immunosuppression, musculoskeletal, eye, ENT and skin. Prescribing or monitoring errors were not associated with the grade of GP or whether prescriptions were issued as acute or repeat items.

A wide range of underlying causes of error were identified relating to the prescriber, patient, the team, the working environment, the task, the computer system and the primary/secondary care interface. Many defences against error were also identified, including strategies employed by individual prescribers and primary care teams, and making best use of health information technology.

The report concludes that prescribing errors in general practices are common, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Strategies for reducing the prevalence of error should focus on GP training, continuing professional development for GPs, clinical governance, effective use of clinical computer systems, and improving safety systems within general practices and at the interface with secondary care. May 2.