Question: Which of the following regarding medical trainee liability is best?
A. Trainees are commonly named as codefendants with their attending physician in a medical malpractice lawsuit.
B. “From a culture of blame to a culture of safety” is a rallying cry against poor work conditions.
C. House officers are always judged by a lower standard, because they are not fully qualified.
D. A, B, and C are correct.
E. A and C are correct.
Answer: A. A recent case of trainee liability in the United Kingdom resulted in criminal prosecution followed by the trainee being struck off the medical register.1 Dr. Hadiza Bawa-Garba, a pediatric trainee in the U.K. National Health Service, was prosecuted in a court of law and found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence for the septic death of a 6-year-old boy with Down syndrome. The General Medical Council (GMC), the U.K. medical regulatory agency, voted to take away her license. The decision aroused the ire of physicians worldwide, who noted the poor supervision and undue pressures she was under.
In August 2018, the U.K. Court of Appeal noted that the general clinical competency of Dr. Bawa-Garba was never at issue, and that “the risk of her clinical practice suddenly and without explanation falling below the standards expected on any given day is no higher than for any other reasonably competent doctor.” It reversed the expulsion order and reinstated the 1-year suspension recommended by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal.
Even as the GMC accepted this appellate decision and had convened a commission to look into criminal negligence, it nonetheless received heavy criticism for having overreacted – and for its failure to speak out more forcefully to support those practicing under oppressive conditions.
For example, the Doctors’ Association UK said the GMC had shown it could not be trusted to be objective and nonpunitive. The case, it noted, had “united the medical profession in fear and outrage,” whereby “a pediatrician in training ... a highly regarded doctor, with a previously unblemished record, [was] convicted of [the criminal offence of] gross negligence manslaughter for judgments made whilst doing the jobs of several doctors at once, covering six wards across four floors, responding to numerous pediatric emergencies, without a functioning IT system, and in the absence of a consultant [senior physician], all when just returning from 14 months of maternity leave.”
The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health said it had “previously flagged the importance of fostering a culture of supporting doctors to learn from their mistakes, rather than one which seeks to blame.” And the British Medical Association said, “lessons must be learned from this case, which raises wider issues about the multiple factors that affect patient safety in an NHS under extreme pressure, rather than narrowly focusing only on individuals.”2
The fiasco surrounding the Dr. Bawa-Garba case will hopefully result in action similar to that following the seminal report that medical errors account for nearly 100,000 annual hospital deaths in the United States. That study was not restricted to house staff mistakes, but involved multiple hospitals and hospital staff members. It spawned a nationwide reappraisal of how to approach medical errors, and it spurred the Institute of Medicine to recommend that the profession shift “from a culture of blame to a culture of safety.”3
Criminal prosecution in the United States is decidedly rare in death or injury occurring during the course of patient care – for either trainees or attending physicians. A malpractice lawsuit would have been a far more likely outcome had the Dr. Bawa-Garba case taken place in the United States.
Lawsuits against U.S. house staff are not rare, and resident physicians are regularly joined as codefendants with their supervisors, who may be medical school faculty or community practitioners admitting to “team care.” Regulatory actions are typically directed against fully licensed physicians, rather than the trainees. Instead, the director of the training program itself would take corrective action against an errant resident, if warranted, which can range from a warning to outright dismissal from the program.
How is negligence law applied to a trainee? Should it demand the same standard of care as it would a fully qualified attending physician?4 Surprisingly, the courts are split on this question. Some have favored using a dual standard of conduct, with trainees being held to a lower standard.
This was articulated in Rush v. Akron General Hospital, which involved a patient who had fallen through a glass door. The patient suffered several lacerations to his shoulder, which the intern treated. However, when two remaining pieces of glass were later discovered in the area of injury, the patient sued the intern for negligence.
The court dismissed the claim, finding that the intern had practiced with the skill and care of his peers of similar training. “It would be unreasonable to exact from an intern, doing emergency work in a hospital, that high degree of skill which is impliedly possessed by a physician and surgeon in the general practice of his profession, with an extensive and constant practice in hospitals and the community,” the court noted.5
However, not all courts have embraced this dual standard of review. The New Jersey Superior Court held that licensed residents should be judged by a standard applicable to a general practitioner, because any reduction in the standard of care would set a problematic precedent.6 In that case, the residents allegedly failed to reinsert a nasogastric tube, which caused the patient to aspirate.
And in Pratt v. Stein, a second-year resident was judged by an even higher standard – that of a specialist – after he had allegedly administered a toxic dose of neomycin to a postoperative patient, which resulted in deafness. Although the lower court had ruled that the resident should be held to the standard of an ordinary physician, the Pennsylvania appellate court disagreed, reasoning that “a resident should be held to the standard of a specialist when the resident is acting within his field of specialty. In our estimation, this is a sound conclusion. A resident is already a physician who has chosen to specialize, and thus possesses a higher degree of knowledge and skill in the chosen specialty than does the nonspecialist.”7
However, a subsequent decision from the same jurisdiction suggests a retreat from this unrealistic standard.
An orthopedic resident allegedly applied a cast with insufficient padding to the broken wrist of a patient. The plaintiff claimed this led to soft-tissue infection with Staphylococcus aureus, with complicating septicemia, staphylococcal endocarditis, and eventual death.
The court held that the resident’s standard of care should be “higher than that for general practitioners but less than that for fully trained orthopedic specialists. ... To require a resident to meet the same standard of care as fully trained specialists would be unrealistic. A resident may have had only days or weeks of training in the specialized residency program; a specialist, on the other hand, will have completed the residency program and may also have had years of experience in the specialized field. If we were to require the resident to exercise the same degree of skill and training as the specialist, we would, in effect, be requiring the resident to do the impossible.”8