Topic

Author/Academic

Viewpoint

Source

The standard of care in medical negligence—moving on from Bolam

H Teff

The principal criticisms of the Bolam test are presented. It is argued that there should be reassertion at the highest level of the court’s role in scrutinising professional practice rather than allowing this to be decided by doctors. Teff suggests that the standard should be what ought to be donerather than what is done.

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1998; 473–484

Trumping Bolam: a critical legal analysis of Bolitho’s gloss

R Mulheron

Mulheron argues that the law should be clearer in defining the ambit of Bolitho principles such as ‘irresponsible’, ‘irrational’ or ‘lacking a logical basis’ in order to clarify the impact of the Bolithogloss on Bolam.

Cambridge L J 2010; 69: 609–638

The role of clinical guidelines in medical litigation: a shift from the Bolam standard

A Samanta, M M Mello, C Foster, J Tingle and J Samanta

This article examines the role of clinical guidelines in informing the standard of care in medical litigation. The authors draw on empirical work and the theoretical basis of the Bolam standard and provide a framework for using clinical guidelines in determining the standard of care.

Med L Rev 2006; 321–366

Bye Bye Bolam: a medical litigation revolution?

M Brazier and J Miola

A useful summary of the impact of Bolitho on the Bolam test. The authors conclude that this is relatively limited.

Med L Rev 2000; 8: 85–114

Unnecessary causes.

J Stapleton.

In arguing for a broader approach to the application of the ‘but for’ test Stapleton suggests that ‘contribution’ is appropriate as a test for factual causation.

LQR 2013; 129: 39

Outing medical errors: questions of trust and responsibility.

O Quick

The author considers medical error as the principal cause of patients suing the NHS. Ways are described by which medical error should be used for purposes of learning and building a safer culture.

Med L Rev 2006; 22: 41