Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

NHS staff should face prison for patient neglect, says Berwick report


NHS staff should face jail in cases of “neglect or wilful misconduct”, a review tasked with making zero-harm care a reality in the NHS has recommended.

However, the review, chaired by former health advisor to President Obama, Professor Don Berwick, rejected calls for a duty of candour on individual members of staff.

Professor Berwick said a requirement to tell patients about every error or near miss would lead to “defensive documentation” by professionals and a bureaucratic burden.

Instead, the Care Quality Commission should require patient or carers affected by a serious incident, as defined by NHS England, to be notified and supported, his report said.

A new criminal offence should be created for cases where individuals had demonstrated a “couldn’t care less attitude” to the treatment of patients, the report recommended. Professor Berwick said this could apply equally to managers if they had acted recklessly.

It recommended sanctions should be equivalent to those in section 44 of the Mental Health Capacity Act, which include up to five years in prison.

The Berwick review was commissioned by the government back in February following the publication of the Francis report into the care scandal at Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust.

It brought together top academics, patient representatives and NHS leaders, including Salford Royal Foundation Trust chief executive David Dalton and chief nurse Elaine Inglesby-Burke.

The review did not propose a minimum staffing level for nursing – contrary to suggestions in the national media – but supported Robert Francis QC’s recommendation that nationally recognised tools be developed to determine staffing levels.

It also said the government should review the regulatory system for the NHS by 2017, and consider again Mr Francis’ recommendation that the economic and quality regulator be merged.

Professor Berwick, who described his review as “philosophical”, said the most important of his recommendations was that all NHS staff should be educated in quality improvement methodology.

“If I could give one recommendation to the secretary of state it would be to invest in giving people these skills…

“Continuous improvement [means] never good enough. The alternative is the tick-box thinking, we are good enough, we’ve done it, we’re home. You’re never home,” he said.

NHS England chief nursing officer Jane Cummings said the NHS should use the report to “move on” from the criticism over poor care received by patients in Mid Staffordshire and other places.

“We can’t forget what’s happened before but we need to use this opportunity to move on,” she said.

“The best wards, the best nurses, do sometimes make mistakes,” she added.

“We need to have the culture and environment where staff can be open and learn from their mistakes. If we do that listen to patients we can make that [culture].”

Are you able to Speak Out Safely? Sign our petition to put pressure on your trust to support an open and transparent NHS.



We will be discussing this story and its implications on twitter today (Wednesday 7 August) at 1pm.

To get involved searchfor #NTtwitchat and include this hastag in all your tweets.


Readers' comments (48)

  • Tinkerbell

    I agree everyone can make a mistake, but those with a couldn't care less attitutde are in the wrong job'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have seen in another report, Prof. Berwick describe the NHS as an "international jewel". Are you listening Mr Cameron & Mr Hunt?

    Time to start polishing this jewel instead of constantly tarnishing it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • prisons are already overcrowdded and costing the tax payer too much.
    unless the crime is very serious and the staff member a danger to the public perhaps there are more suitable punitive measures. removal from the professional register giving the right to practice should definitely be the first step.

    a clear distinction must be made between negligence and criminal acts and those who have made genuine mistakes with protection for them against inappropriate treatment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We still have some way to go despite raising awareness, before staff feel comfortable enough to raise concerns without the threat of retribution. The balme culture remains in all levels of the NHS. Until this is addressed 'the culture and environment where staff can be open and learn from their mistakes' may be but pie in the sky??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is this Mental Health Capacity Act? Tink should be able to answer that one for us.

    'It recommended sanctions should be equivalent to those in section 44 of the Mental Health Capacity Act, which include up to five years in prison.'

    And putting faith in the CQC, might just be a step too far.

    Anonymous | 6-Aug-2013 1:54 pm

    Yes - sort out the fear factor, first.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tinkerbell

    Prosecution for ill-treatment or neglect

    The Mental Capacity Act creates the criminal offences of ill-treatment or wilful neglect under Section 44 based on existing principles (under Section 127 (1) of the Mental Health Act 1983). The offences can be committed by anyone responsible for that person’s care.

    They are offences punishable 'either way' in the Magistrates' or Crown Court as follows:

    on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

    on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both.
    The elements are that the offender:

    has the care of the person in question OR is the donee of a power of attorney OR is a court-appointed deputy;

    reasonably believes the person lacks capacity (or they do lack capacity);

    ill-treats or wilfully neglects the person.
    It can be expected that ill-treatment will require more than trivial ill-treatment, and will cover both deliberate acts of ill-treatment and also those acts reckless as to whether there is ill-treatment.

    Wilful neglect will require a serious departure from the required standards of treatment and usually requires that a person has deliberately failed to carry out an act that they were aware they were under a duty to perform.

    In consequence, defences could be raised to the effect that the elements of the offence set out in Section 44 are not made out in the following terms:

    there is no Section 44 relationship (no care/power of attorney/court-appointed role);

    the person does not lack capacity and/or there was no reasonable belief in such a lack of capacity;

    there was no ill-treatment or wilful neglect.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tinkerbell

    The Mental Capacity Act make clear who can take decisions in which situations, and how they should go about this. Anyone who works with or cares for an adult who lacks capacity must comply with the MCA when making decisions or acting for that person.

    This applies whether decisions are life changing events or more every day matters and is relevant to adults of any age, regardless of when they lost capacity.

    The underlying philosophy of the MCA is to ensure that those who lack capacity are empowered to make as many decisions for themselves as possible and that any decision made, or action taken, on their behalf is made in their best interests.

    The five key principles in the Act are:

    Every adult has the right to make his or her own decisions and must be assumed to have capacity to make them unless it is proved otherwise.
    A person must be given all practicable help before anyone treats them as not being able to make their own decisions.
    Just because an individual makes what might be seen as an unwise decision, they should not be treated as lacking capacity to make that decision.
    Anything done or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done in their best interests.
    Anything done for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity should be the least restrictive of their basic rights and freedoms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tinkerbell

    and not to be confused with the Mental Health Act.

    Have a nice cup of tea with it as it's a bit dry and a long read but the briefest of explanations i could find at short notice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What about the neglect in care homes.
    I am a carer and yesterday I refused to go back to being sent to residential homes and nursing homes after I was sent to a home on Sunday where I had to dig out knickers for an old lady out of a second hand box as she did not have any, I also had to wash and clean clients with paper towels and hand wash soap. I reported it to my agency bosses again and no one cares. QCC are a joke. So its not just the NHS its ALL care facilities

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Will this also apply to Trust Managers who fail to allocate sufficient funding for patient care, or even, dare I say, Government Ministers whose inappropriate actions and development of Post Code Lottery care zones causes hardship and distress to patients, relatives and carers?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page20 per page50 per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.