Report comment

Anon @ 19.50 - why should Bolam apply to a receptionist with no particular professional qualifications? He/She was not exercising professional judgment, and the mere fact that it was in relation to medical treatment in a hospital does not change that.

The point of the CofA decision though was not what the standard should be, but that the receptionist should not, on public policy grounds, owe *any* duty of care with regard to any information they actually provide.

I would agree with others below that it cannot really be expecting too much of a receptionist working in a hospital to have a basic understanding of the triage process, and to understand that the order patients are then dealt with will depend on that triage assessment. Indeed the judgment suggests receptionists are expected to make at least some very basic assessment and can or are expected to request urgent triage for patients in a very poor condition.

I also can't see that it's unreasonable to expect that process to be explained, no matter how briefly to patients. Indeed I would have assumed they would go out of their way to explain it, as I presume the more common day to day issue is patients complaining that someone else who arrived after them has been seen first.

However, in this case the trial judge accepted the factual evidence that the receptionist had actually given information on waiting times, and that the information that was given was incorrect.

This was a pure public policy decision, with Jackson LJ justifying it on the basis that they didn't want arguments in court about who said what. I however thought that determining factual issues was a fundamental part of many trials, and I find it notable that the judge felt perfectly capable of coming to a conclusion as to what was said in this case. As an aside, I find the floodgates argument risible, as I really can't see Claimant solicitors falling over themselves to take such cases unless there is strong factual evidence.

Dismissing the case because the Claimant's decision to leave A&E was sufficient to break the chain of causation - that I could accept. I would also assume that even if successful, there would be a very large deduction for contrib. However, I find it very difficult to accept that there is no duty on a hospital receptionist to ensure that any information that they do give (on matters that are or should be well within their understanding) is at least reasonably accurate.