Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

Law note: what treatment risks do I have to discuss with my patients?

Adam Sandell
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (636): 365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X685801
Adam Sandell
GP, Cumbria, and Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

A Supreme Court Judgment in March this year has changed the law about the discussions we need to have with patients about the risks posed by treatment. ‘Doctor knows best’ gets another kicking.

THE BUSY-DOCTOR VERSION

Discuss with patients any material risks involved in proposed treatment, as well as reasonable alternative approaches. A risk is ‘material’ if your patient is likely to attach significance to it. Might she make a different decision if she knew? If so, tell her.

IF YOU’RE MORE INTERESTED

Remember the Bolam test? Bolam’s the case about breaching your duty of care.1 You’re not negligent if you act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, so long as that practice isn’t nuts.2

Until now, Bolam was how the courts determined what we have to tell our patients about the risks of treatment. You didn’t have to discuss a particular risk if there were other suitably-qualified doctors who wouldn’t have done so.3 Montgomery, a recent Supreme Court case, changes that.4

Mrs Montgomery was small, had diabetes, and was pregnant with a big baby. Her obstetrician didn’t normally warn such women of the risk of shoulder dystocia, believing the risk of serious harm to be small. She thought that discussing it would result in women deciding to have caesareans when it wasn’t in their interests to do so. Shoulder dystocia occurred during Mrs Montgomery’s distressing vaginal delivery, and her baby was born with severe disabilities. Things have changed, said the Supreme Court: ‘Patients are now widely regarded as persons holding rights, rather than as the passive recipients of the care of the medical profession. They are also widely treated as consumers exercising choices ... The idea that patients were medically uninformed and incapable of understanding medical matters was always a questionable generalisation.’

So doctors must now take reasonable care to ensure that patients are aware of any material risks involved in any treatment, and of any reasonable alternative treatments. And this means discussion with patients, not bombarding them with technical information.

Note the words any material risk. What’s ‘material’? Any risk that a reasonable patient in the same situation would ‘attach significance to’, or that you know or should know your patient would attach significance to. That means, at least, anything that, if she knew it, might result in her making a different decision.

One caveat is that we can withhold information from patients when we reasonably believe that disclosing it would be seriously detrimental to their health. But this will be rare, and probably needs careful consideration, discussion with colleagues, and documenting. In another case, the Court of Appeal has distinguished between discussions that may cause some distress and those likely to cause physical or psychological harm. The possibility that a patient may find a topic distressing won’t usually justify withholding important information from them.5

COMMENT

While Montgomery was about treatment, it must apply to investigations too, and to decisions not to investigate or treat. If this feels like a load of extra work, try turning it around. How would you feel if you discovered you’d not been told about a treatment risk when, if you had been told about it, you might have chosen a different treatment, or might have decided not to have the treatment?

For GPs, the two risks we most often need to be discussing with patients are probably potential harms from medication, and the risks of decisions not to investigate. If you’re not discussing the risk of dependence when you prescribe gabapentin or pregabalin,6 or are opting for a wait-and-see approach with a frail, older patient who may have cancer without sharing your thinking with her, you may need to think again.

Where to draw the line? Most patients won’t appreciate a recital of each recorded side effect to every medication. Montgomery doesn’t require that. The decision about what to discuss, said the court, depends on things like the nature of the risk, the effects it would have, the importance of the treatment, the alternatives available, the risks involved in those alternatives, and the ‘characteristics of the patient’.

Use your judgement. Err on the side of sensitive openness. We’re going to have to get used to discussing things often gone undiscussed in the past. The courts are a little ahead of the medical profession on this. But, as patients, most of us would want to be told about the important stuff: indeed, we’d feel entitled to know. That right is what the Supreme Court has recognised.

Footnotes

  • You can read more by Adam Sandell at the BJGP blog: http://bjgpblog.com

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2015

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.
  2. 2.↵
    Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232.
  3. 3.↵
    Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital and Maudsley Hospital [1984] QB 493.
  4. 4.↵
    Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11. https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0136_Judgment.pdf (accessed 29 Apr 2015).
  5. 5.↵
    R (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals [2014] EWCA Civ 882. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/tracey-approved.pdf (accessed 29 Apr 2015).
  6. 6.↵
    1. NHS England
    Advice for prescribers on the risk of the misuse of pregabalin and gabapentin, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/385791/PHE-NHS_England_pregabalin_and_gabapentin_advice_Dec_2014.pdf (accessed 29 Apr 2015).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 65 (636)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 65, Issue 636
July 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Law note: what treatment risks do I have to discuss with my patients?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Law note: what treatment risks do I have to discuss with my patients?
Adam Sandell
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (636): 365. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X685801

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Law note: what treatment risks do I have to discuss with my patients?
Adam Sandell
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (636): 365. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X685801
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • THE BUSY-DOCTOR VERSION
    • IF YOU’RE MORE INTERESTED
    • COMMENT
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Viewpoint: Redundant subjectivity?
  • Books: A Layman’s Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis
  • Can compassion help cure health-related disorders?
Show more Out of Hours

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242