Freedom of information request details
FOI request date:
The following information was requested:
Thank you for your response to FOI_7638.
REQUEST A – Clarification of Methodology
I am writing to request clarification of the definitions and methodology used in producing the
data already disclosed, to ensure the information is interpreted accurately. This request
concerns recorded information explaining how the disclosed data was generated and does not
seek new data extraction, manual file review, or case level detail.
1. Definition of “Specialty is Neurology”
1.1 Please confirm how “Specialty is Neurology” is defined for the purposes of FOI_7638.
1.2 In particular, please confirm whether this category is assigned based on the clinical service
primarily responsible for the care, the specialty in which the incident occurred, or the specialty
of the clinician named in the claim.
1.3 Please also confirm whether headache or migraine services are included within the
“Neurology” specialty for claims coding purposes.
2. Meaning of “Psyc_Prescribe_flag”
Tables 3 and 9 reference a field titled “Psyc_Prescribe_flag”.
2.1 Please confirm what this flag represents, for example whether it identifies claims involving
pre existing psychiatric conditions, psychiatric injury related to prescribing, or another defined
criterion.
2.2 Please confirm how this flag is set, for example automatically based on coded fields or
manually by claims handlers.
2.3 Please confirm when this flag was introduced into the claims database and whether it has
been applied retrospectively to earlier claims.
3. Clarification of Table 6 “No data met criteria”
Table 6 states that “There was no data that met the above criteria” and presents values as zero,
whereas elsewhere low numbers are masked using a “#” symbol.
3.1 Please confirm whether the Table 6 result represents a true zero, meaning no claims
meeting the criteria, or suppressed low numbers between 1 and 4 masked for data protection
reasons.
3.2 If this is a true zero, please confirm that this means that between financial years 2020/21
and 2024/25 there were zero clinical negligence claims closed or settled with a damages
payment where the Specialty was Neurology, the Primary Injury was Psychiatric or
Psychological Damage, and the Primary Cause was Medication Errors, Incorrect Injection Site,
or Error with Agent Dose Route Selection.
4. Primary Cause coding definitions
Please provide the definitions used by NHS Resolution for the following Primary Cause codes
referenced in FOI_7638: Medication Errors; Error with Agent Dose Route Selection; Fail to
Warn – Informed Consent; Inadequate Assessment.
Please also confirm how the Primary Cause is determined where multiple alleged causes are
present in a single claim.
Format and cost
This request seeks clarification of definitions and methodology relating to data already
disclosed. It does not require review of individual claim files or new analysis. If any part of this
request is considered to exceed Section 12 cost limits, please provide the information that can
be disclosed within limits and advise how any remaining part could be refined.
REQUEST B – GSTT-Specific Data (Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust)
In your clarification email dated 30 December 2025, you stated that NHS Resolution could
provide high level claims data broken down “by trust”.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I now request a specific breakdown for Guy’s
and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT). To ensure that the data is statistically
significant and to minimise the necessity of redactions under Section 40(2), I am requesting this
data for the ten year period from financial years 2015/16 to 2024/25 inclusive.
Request for Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT)
1. Claims overview (Neurology)
1.1 The total number of clinical negligence claims received where the Specialty is Neurology.
1.2 The number of these claims closed with a damages payment.
1.3 The number of these claims closed with nil damages.
1.4 The total associated costs, including damages, NHS legal costs, and claimant legal costs.
2. Breakdown by Primary Cause
Using the same methodology as Table 1 of FOI_7638, please provide the number of neurology
claims for GSTT broken down by Primary Cause, specifically including Medication Errors; Fail
To Warn – Informed Consent; Inadequate Assessment.
3. Breakdown by Primary Injury
Using the same methodology as Table 2 of FOI_7638, please provide the number of neurology
claims for GSTT broken down by Primary Injury, specifically including Psychiatric or
Psychological Damage.
4. Combined criteria (Prescribing / Psychiatric intersection)
The number of neurology claims for GSTT where the Primary Injury is Psychiatric or
Psychological Damage and the Primary Cause is one of the following: Medication Errors;
Incorrect Injection Site; Error with Agent Dose Route Selection.
Note on Section 12 (cost limit) and Section 40 (privacy)
In your clarification email of 30 December 2025, you explicitly stated that you could provide high
level data such as the number of claims received for the specialty, the number closed with nil
damages paid, breakdown by primary cause, breakdown by primary injury, or by trust. This
places Trust level analysis in the same category of availability as cause and injury breakdowns,
which you have already provided in FOI_7638. The present request seeks the same high level
analysis you confirmed was available, limited to a single Trust.
As you have already confirmed that “Trust” is a reportable field in your database, I trust this
request will not exceed the cost threshold. If the numbers for specific sub categories remain
below five, please provide aggregated totals for the full ten year period to enable disclosure.
Page last updated on:
