Why do Women Sue?

Statistics published by the National Health Service Litigation Authority relating to ten years of maternity claims provoke a sharp intake of breath. The total value of these claims over the first decade of the 21st century was £3,117,649,888 (NHS Litigation Authority 2012). The United Kingdom is not the only country to witness an astronomical increase in the level of litigation relating to maternity services. As far afield as Saudi Arabia (Henary et al 2012) and the United States (Berkowitz 2011), reports are being published of the demands on maternity budgets as a result of dissatisfaction with care received during pregnancy, labour and birth. The papers referenced above attribute adverse outcomes to negligence, misdiagnosis, surgical blunders and inefficient administration. Berkowitz(2011:7) suggests that what is needed is wholesale and whole-hearted adoption of ‘…electronic fetal monitoring [EFM] certification for all staff working on their Labor and Delivery floor, protocols for managing common clinical scenarios, simulation drills for dealing with uncommon dangerous events, and pre-procedure checklists’. The NHS Litigation Authority (2012:5) recommends that Trusts ‘…engage with the risk management process at all levels; provide suitable learning and training; ensure appropriate supervision and support; have in place up-to-date protocols and guidance with which staff are familiar; learn lessons from claims’. It is relatively easy to ensure that staff are sent on fetal heart rate (FHR) training days (although whether use of EFM produces better outcomes has, of course, never been clearly demonstrated (Alfirevic et al 2013) and that protocols for managing events during labour and birth are drawn up and even put into practice. It’s uncertain, however, whether doing so will make the problem of maternity litigation go away. There is something ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’ that is fuelling women’s dissatisfaction and which ‘the system’ has not been able to get its head round.

ILS and RTP: Support to Researchers Provided by Information and Learning Services as Part of the Research Training Programme at the University of Worcester, Past, Present and Future.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the involvement of Information and Learning Services staff in the delivery of the Research Training Programme at the University of Worcester, UK with a focus on researcher receptivity. I believe that by constantly reflecting on the development of that part of the programme delivered by ILS and by examining feedback from the sessions, it is possible to improve and increase the level of researcher receptivity. It is hoped that such examination and reflection will be of value and relevance to the IL community since by reflecting on success and failure in a local context and by mapping this reflection to existing research enables librarians to improve the support provided to researchers within their institutions. This article outlines the support given to research students at the University of Worcester in the past, examines the changes leading to present programme delivery and reflects on considerations for future support. The article is underpinned by reference to current research undertaken in international (albeit Western-centric) contexts. I note that the rationale behind changes is embedded in current adult learning and teaching theory. In an increasingly competitive research environment where funding is dependent on a statistically monitored research output, the aim of such support is to integrate any IL contribution into the wider research training programme. Thus resource discovery becomes part of the reflexive research cycle. Implicit in this investigative reflection is the desire of the IL community to constantly strive towards the positive reception of IL into research support programmes which are perceived by researchers as highly valuable to the process and progress of their work.