Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 21, line 26, to delete "the health services provider has" and substitute "there are".

The group of amendments to section 8 aim to take the power to judge whether a patient was placed at risk or could have been injured out of the hands of the health service provider alone. It would not be out of its hands exclusively but alone. It is important to say that in the original heads of the Bill it was held in this section that a patient safety incident was one in which a patient was harmed or there were reasonable grounds for believing that during the provision of a health service for a patient, he or she was placed at risk of injury or harm, or an incident in which but for timely intervention the patient would have been harmed. The definition of "patient safety incident" is really important as it is patient safety incidents that will be the subject of the open disclosure parts of the Bill. The original version of the heads of Bill has been changed such that the only incident that will qualify as a patient safety incident is one where the health service provider has reasonable grounds for believing the patient was at risk or that but for a timely intervention, he or she would have been put at risk. That gives way too much power to the health service provider. We know from global literature and, sadly, our own experience of the HSE that developing a culture of openness and transparency is difficult. We know that it has been challenging for the HSE. In that sense, allowing the decision to be solely in the hands of the health service provider goes against the grain of what we are trying to do with this legislation.

I accept fully that in many cases the health service provider is best placed to know whether somebody was put at risk. That goes without saying, but our amendment would not change that and the health service provider might still be the party making that input. There may be a small number of cases where the patient or a family member sees something happen and there will be reasonable grounds for suspecting the patient or a loved one was put at risk or something happened. They should also have the right to have an incident included, if one likes. That is all we are trying to do. For example, a doctor or a nurse may fill an intravenous antibiotic bag with penicillin when the patient is allergic to it and the patient may stop it happening before the line goes in. The health service provider may not see it as a patient safety incident, but it could have been and the patient should have the right to have it examined. That is all we are saying. It would happen in a small minority of cases where a patient or a family member might think the patient was put at risk or there was some evidence to that effect.

The amendment would mean power would not be solely in the hands of the service provider. It would help health service providers to change the culture where there is a battening down of the hatches and everything is denied. It would help to open disclosure without imposing an onerous burden. The provision was included in the original heads of Bill and it is what we are trying to achieve with this group of amendments.