Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is an interesting issue. The legislation is unusual in seeking to place an obligation on a hospital - let us call it a hospital - following a patient safety incident to tell the patient about it without any consequences for litigation or liability on the part of the hospital. It is unusual in that respect. That is why the definition of "patient safety incident" is important. The obligation is on the hospital to disclose it.

At present the paragraph states "in respect of which the health services provider [the hospital] has reasonable grounds to believe placed the patient at risk of unintended or unanticipated injury". Deputy Daly proposes to change that to cover cases in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe the patient was placed at risk. The question relates to whose belief we are talking about. The verb "believe" is used. It currently includes the phrase "reasonable grounds to believe". I would have thought that since the hospital must make the disclosure, it would be unusual if there was an obligation on the hospital to disclose something and it did not believe or did not know what happened.

Deputy Daly gave the example of a member of the family knowing something. If they saw something, they would bring it to the attention of the hospital. If the hospital then becomes aware of it and believes it and if it does nothing about it, the family can sue it. There could be a case where the hospital is not aware of grounds and yet the obligation is imposed on the hospital to disclose this. The important thing is to whom the belief refers. Given that it states "reasonable grounds to believe", it has to be an individual. While I could be wrong about this, I would have thought that since the ultimate obligation is on the hospital, the belief refers to the hospital. I am open to persuasion.