They are legal issues though, hence the cost.
As has been said above, the NHS could save itself plenty by being more transparent as people are suing as the only way to get some answers rather than for any compensation.
The vast majority of the cases are by Ambulance Chasing "Compo" Lawyers.
If people ask the questions in the right manner they get answers.
Use a service like Patient Advice & Liaison rather than alternative avenues.
Nobody in the NHS generally, with notable exceptions, goes to work intending to harm patients.
Sometimes the flow through the system can breakdown, is that down to an individual? Very unlikely.
"Compensation" is, in reality, papering over the cracks. They should be asking if the complainant A: Want to see the system improve? Or B: Take the ££££ and not care?
Too many of us are choosing Option B.
Try this case:
"Mr. William Ewan died in 2007, at the age of 86, following an operation to insert a trans-aortic valve. His estate (represented by GS) brought proceedings in negligence against the Trust alleging failure to give proper information as to the risks involved in the operation, and claiming that if appropriate warnings had been provided, Mr. Ewan would not have undergone surgery. Liability was accepted, but the case proceeded to trial on quantum. "
The patient was offered life saving surgery, no surgery he die`s anyway.
It`s heart surgery, it has risks.
He`s dead.......... he`s not going to benefit.
He was 86, he was going to die anyway, we all do.
He`s not able to give evidence, he`s dead!!
The lawyers profit............ nobody else.