ReviewFrontiers in health services2025
Understanding the factors that shape patient choices in bringing a claim for clinical negligence against the NHS in England: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Improving patient experience is a prominent theme of the National Health Service (NHS) 10-Year Health Plan for England including the need to improve patient experience of clinical negligence claims. Understanding the factors that shape patient choices in bringing a claim for clinical negligence is an important aspect of patient experience that has the potential to provide crucial insight that could inform the future reform of the clinical negligence process in England. This scoping review aimed to identify the key concepts within the limited research exploring the factors that shape patient choices in bringing a claim for clinical negligence against the NHS in England and identify where gaps in the research may exist. Methods: To address this knowledge gap, a methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was applied. Search strategies were developed using selected keywords and index terms. Relevant published literature was identified by applying the search strategy to the peer-reviewed databases MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Westlaw. Reference lists of relevant publications were searched to identify relevant research and academic policy. All studies identified were charted, and the results were presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: Two main themes were identified from the 17 included records. These themes were 'experience of harm' and 'accessibility of compensation for clinical negligence'. Conclusion: How an NHS organisation responds to harm can shape patient choices in bringing a claim for clinical negligence. However, this scoping review identified the limited consideration given to how current law and policy, organisational cultures, social determinants of health and health inequalities may shape patient choices in bringing a claim for clinical negligence. Furthermore, this scoping review has identified that empirical research has given no consideration to the role of social media or Artificial Intelligence (AI) in shaping patient choices in bringing a claim for clinical negligence. Research considering these factors is vital to improve patient experience of the clinical negligence process in England and has the potential to play an important role in informing the future reform of the clinical negligence process in England. Systematic Review Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.I0/6BP2N.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.