Generally when we are unwell we receive some of the best quality treatment in the world thanks to our NHS system. Nevertheless, there are times when standards of care fall below what should be expected of a competent medical practitioner and patients can be injured as a result.

In some instances, the injury caused by the negligence of the doctor, nurse or other practitioner can be serious and lead to long term or serious complications, inability to work and in very unfortunate cases, death. In many cases, patients or their families make medical negligence claims in order to get the justice they deserve in the form of an admission of liability, an apology and monetary compensation. Such compensation, whilst entirely deserved, does cost the NHS millions of pounds every year.

Therefore, should doctors be assessed regularly to ensure that they are up to the job, in the hope of reducing instances of injury to patients caused by negligence? Could regular inspections of doctors prevent tragedies?

Many people are against this idea, claiming that such inspections would be costly, both financially and in terms of time: some even claim they are unnecessary. But surely as long as there are examples of medical negligence occurring there will be a need to do all that is possible to prevent it.

There is no denying that assessing doctors regularly would be costly, but lengthy legal battles and costly compensation payouts are already costing the NHS dearly. Therefore wouldn't assessing and inspecting doctors regularly be a money saving measure in the long term?