Clinical negligence claims from 2015

​Request ​810581285

I am requesting information relating to clinical negligence claims involving mental health services where the defendant is the Health Minister or the Health Department. 

For the period 1 January 2015 to present, please provide: 

1. The total number of clinical negligence claims relating to mental health services received by or made against the Health Minister or the Health Department. 

2. A yearly breakdown (2015–present) of the number of claims received. 

3. Of those claims, please indicate for each year: 

a) How many resulted in an Order of Justice being issued (claims taken to court). 

b) How many did not reach court (for example, where a Letter of Claim or allegation was received but no Order of Justice was issued). 

4. The outcome of claims, where known, for example: 

- Settled out of court 

- Liability denied / claim defended 

- Withdrawn or discontinued 

- Determined by the Court 

5. The total value of compensation paid per year in relation to these claims (if possible, as aggregated yearly totals rather than individual claim amounts). 

6. If recorded, a high-level category or summary of the alleged negligence (for example: treatment error, diagnostic delay, care management issue), provided in anonymised aggregated form. 

This request does not seek personal data or identifiable information relating to any patient, staff member, or individual claim.

Response

For the purpose of this response, a claim is any approach to the Minister notifying the investigation of a potential claim regardless of whether formal allegations are made or not.

From January 2015 to present year, a total of 17 claims have been received during this eleven-year period relating to mental health services. Owing to the small number of claims received in any single year, an annual breakdown is not provided as this could identify distinct cases and the individuals involved. Therefore, Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to protect the privacy of individuals.

Fewer than five of these claims resulted in an Order of Justice being issued. As numbers are small, disclosure control has been applied to protect the privacy of individuals, and Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

The outcomes of these claims include; out of court settlement, denial of liability (claim discontinued), and claims that did not progress.

The Minister has made compensation payments totalling £290,878 during this eleven-year period in relation to these claims. The value of compensation is the damages settlement and does not include Plaintiff and Defendant costs and disbursements or any component paid by insurers. This figure is the aggregate of the damages settlement paid by the Minister / Government.

Owing to the small number of cases in scope and any confidentiality agreements as may be included in the terms of settlement, it is not possible to provide an annual breakdown of this figure by year, as doing so could prejudice the commercial interests of Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) and impact on the privacy of individuals. Therefore, Article 33 and Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 have been applied.

The claims related to; patient discharge, case management, and medication management.

Articles applied

Article 25 Personal information 

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. 

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if – 

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and 

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law

Article 33 Commercial interests 

Information is qualified exempt information if – 

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or 

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest Test

Article 33 is a qualified exemption and as such, Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) has conducted a prejudice test as required by law.

When responding to requests of this nature, HCJ has to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would, or would be likely to, have upon the organisation and / or third parties.

In considering the application of this exemption, HCJ has determined that whilst it is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency about compensation claims made against Government Departments and the settlements reached, this is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result for any future proceedings from disclosing specifics, and the impact of this upon the commercial interests of HCJ and third parties. As such, Article 33 has been applied.​