Establishing the shadowline: the border between legally acceptable and unacceptable standards of surgical practice

Abstract

Introduction Our study investigated how the standard of surgical care is assessed within the English and Welsh litigation process. The ‘shadowline’ represents the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable standards of care. Our hypothesis was that different assessors risk adopting materially different interpretations regarding the acceptable standard of care. Any variation in the interpretation of where the shadowline falls will create uncertainty and unfairness to surgeons and patients alike. Methods We summarised the legal literature and suggested the factors affecting the assessment of surgical standards. We illustrated our findings on distribution curves. Results There was a risk that the shape of the curve and the location of the shadowline may vary according to the assessor. Importantly, a gap may have developed between the legal and clinical shadowlines in respect of the consenting process. Discussion and conclusion We suggested how a gap between the surgical and legal shadow lines could be narrowed. Clinical governance, balanced literature and realistic expert assessments were all part of the solution.