Abstract

Objectives

This article determines public stated preferences around different factors that influence the choice to make clinical negligence claims against a national healthcare system.

Methods

A large online survey was conducted using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with the UK general population (N = 1013). DCE tasks involved a single profile and participants chose whether to make a claim for compensation (yes/no) after one of 3 randomly allocated patient safety incident (PSI) “scenarios” of different severities (mild, moderate, severe). DCE attributes described the actions of the healthcare system after a PSI and characteristics of the clinical negligence claims process. The data were modeled separately for each scenario (mild, moderate, severe) using logistic regression. Marginal effects and the probability of making a claim in a baseline case were estimated.

Results

Probability of choosing to claim was reduced by receipt of an apology, investigation and prevention of recurrence of the PSI, and longer time until claim decision and increased by an easy and straightforward claims process and high chance of compensation and for the mild scenario higher compensation amounts. Marginal effects and baseline case probabilities differed by scenario severity.

Conclusions

The results suggest the actions of the healthcare system after a PSI and characteristics of the claims process have a larger impact on the probability of making a claim for milder PSIs. For more severe PSIs, a larger probability of making a claim was observed, and the choice was less influenced by the actions of the healthcare system after the PSI and characteristics of the claims process.