Legal challenges threaten service redesign
Royal Brompton and Harefield Foundation Trust’s successful judicial review of the national consultation into the reconfiguration of paediatric cardiac services will send a shiver down the backbones of those charged with reshaping the English NHS.
As HSJ also reports this week, a wave of reconfigurations is emerging across the country as commissioners follow London’s example by concentrating services into a smaller number of specialist units. Proposals in the North and South are proving controversial and, after the Brompton’s victory, it would be no surprise to find the chief executives of providers and commissioners ensuring they have their lawyers on speed dial.
The NHS is likely to see a significant increase in judicial reviews. The first, obvious, reason is that there is a pressing need to reconfigure how and where it delivers its services. The second is that new legislation strengthens the need to consult with a wider a range of groups before reaching any decision. The final reason is that this increased activity within the context of a stricter regulatory framework will take place in a service which is being drained of the necessary resource, in which roles and responsibilities are in flux and where legal risk assessment is both complex and sometimes unaffordable.
The dangers are significant. Earlier this year HSJ carried a warning from a respected lawyer that legal challenges to clinical commissioning groups over reconfiguration decisions could “wipe them out”.
Who would criticise any primary care trust cluster or emergent CCG for tip-toeing through a reconfiguration process with a set of less than radical proposals to minimise the likelihood of challenge? The resulting shuffling of the deckchairs might result in even more harm than that caused by objections to decisions rushed through because of a financial and/or clinical imperative.
Of course, angry, independent - and wealthy - foundation trusts will not be the only ones launching judicial reviews as a result of servicechange. In local government more than 20 judicial reviews resulted from service users challenging attempts to change the eligibility to access services. The parallels with an NHS seeking to rethink the most effective way to supply services are easy to see. Finally, there is the potential for legal challenge to new employment models - as we saw recently with the transfer of Gloucestershire’s community services.
Without action there remains a significant chance NHS reconfigurations could become queued up outside the High Court like London buses. Increasing theamount of advice, resource and risk monitoring available to all NHS bodies involved would be yet another demand on scare funds. But the sums involved would be dwarfed by judicial review legal costs and, especially, by the impact of delayed or fudged decisions.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.








Readers' comments (5)
Cassander | 11-Nov-2011 11:19 am
A house divided against itself...
Thorny one, this. The children's cardiac review turned into a popularity contest: adverts on buses, billboards, social media campaigns with celebrities asking you to vote for option X.
The cleanest solution would be to get rid of the purchaser-provider split, and all the tribalism and perverse incentives it engenders.
Back in the real world, perhaps the hope is that the public will swallow their GP closing a service. (No-one likes to bite the hand that signs them off!)
Unsuitable or offensive?
Martin Rathfelder | 11-Nov-2011 11:51 am
Is this news?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2011 9:50 am
This reinforces my view that the way to reconfigure specialist services is to set appropriate but challenging clinical outcomes and patient experience measures - such that those that are unable to achieve choose to discontinue rather than are forced out. There may of course be occasions where all providers are doingg too little to achieve the best - but the evidence on outcomes is still the best environment in which to make any changes
Unsuitable or offensive?
Patrick Newman | 14-Nov-2011 10:13 am
With a service as vital as the NHS JR's cannot be avoided. The intricate changes to legislation in the Health Bill will produce unintended legal consequences (or opportunities) - argument for incremental rather than radical change. Soon we will have the added dimension of local government - no strangers to JR's. However 'internal' legal attrition should be avoidable but is implicit in the independence of FT's who will fight to retain their city state. Trace much of it back to the internal market which necessitates the purchaser - provider separation. Start again?
Unsuitable or offensive?
phil kenmore | 14-Nov-2011 12:37 pm
It just does not seem right to have parts of the NHS, funded by us, fighting other parts of the NHS (also funded by us) through the courts to prevent service reconfigurations. Whether you agree with the actual reconfiguration or not the only people that this is benefitting are lawyers. Sometimes the NHS just makes me sigh.
Unsuitable or offensive?