Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
Professor Oliver has written about this theme previously, and I largely agree with his thrust. One of my responses (ref 1) to an earlier article of his, contained my summation of the basic problem:
'When I hit my thumb with a hammer, instead of the nail I intended to hit, I 'investigate' why that happened, but I don't really 'blame myself' because I definitely wasn't trying to hit my own hand. It is very difficult for some relatives to accept that 'there can be damage, and even some 'mistakes', without blame genuinely attaching to any specific individual'. It is very difficult for some clinicians, to be open and honest if they suspect 'I'll be blamed here, for something which wasn't really my fault'. It needs sorting out - but I'm not sure how that can be achieved.'
I am not sure that I am entirely on board with Professor Oliver's:
'Clinicians and managers then face trial by media, often with no right of redress and no way to contest allegations without breaching patient confidentiality or appearing uncaring.'
Because it does seem to me, that sometimes when disputes become public, NHS Trusts sometimes seem to seek to withhold details despite patients and relatives apparently being willing to introduce those details into 'public debate': it is difficult for the media, to be fair and impartial in reporting, if hamstrung by an absence of the detail necessary for consideration of a situation.