Doctors could face legal action over AI errors in NHS care

AI in healthcare is creating 'liability gap' for doctors

Doctors and NHS organisations could be held legally responsible for mistakes made by AI systems used in patient care unless the law is updated, according to a report published by a leading medical defence body.

The Medical Protection Society (MPS), which supports healthcare professionals facing legal and regulatory challenges, says current legislation risks making clinicians the default targets of negligence claims when AI-assisted decisions result in patient harm.

The warning comes as AI technologies are increasingly integrated into healthcare, with NHS services using them to analyse medical images, generate clinical summaries and assist with administrative tasks.

When AI is used in this way it legally becomes a medical device.

Serious consequences

In its Closing the AI Liability Gap report, the MPS argues existing legal frameworks have not kept pace with the rapid expansion of AI in medicine.

The report [pdf] points to several scenarios in which AI errors could have serious consequences.

One example involves an AI system analysing a chest X-ray and failing to identify signs of lung cancer. If clinicians relied on the technology's assessment, a patient could be wrongly reassured, delaying treatment until the disease had progressed beyond effective intervention.

In another hypothetical, an AI recommendation to increase a patient's blood-thinning medication could lead to severe internal bleeding, requiring emergency surgery and intensive care treatment.

MPS believes patients harmed in such circumstances would be likely to pursue legal action against clinicians or healthcare providers, even when the underlying error originated from the technology itself.

Under current UK law, product liability rules may not clearly apply to many AI systems used in clinical settings.

As a result, doctors and NHS organisations could bear the financial and legal consequences of failures over which they had limited control.

"The law has always struggled to keep up with technological change. But with AI, the pace of change is so rapid that this gap feels less like a step and more like a widening gulf," said Dr Sarah Townley, the MPS's deputy medical director.

Recommendations

The MPS recommends that AI tools be legally recognised as products, making them subject to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

It says this would help ensure that developers, manufacturers and suppliers share responsibility when AI errors contribute to patient harm.

The organisation argues that clearer liability rules would encourage safer AI development, provide fairer outcomes for patients seeking compensation and reduce the burden of claims on healthcare professionals and the NHS.

Supporters of reform say legal certainty could also accelerate the adoption of beneficial technologies.

Dr Ragit Varia, president-elect of the Society for Acute Medicine, said innovation and patient safety must advance together.

"If AI is advancing at Formula One speed, then legislation, regulation and governance cannot be left sitting in the pit lane," he said.

He warned that failing to address the issue could create confusion over accountability when patients are harmed.

The Department of Health and Social Care said work is already underway to examine the issue.

"We welcome the MPS's report and will review its recommendations to ensure patients continue receiving the benefits of AI in healthcare safely and quickly," a DHSC spokesperson told The Guardian.

NHS Resolution, the body responsible for handling negligence claims against NHS organisations in England, is currently preparing guidance on liability relating to the use of AI in healthcare.