{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,21]],"date-time":"2026-08-21T08:25:28Z","timestamp":1787300728722,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":14,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,18]],"date-time":"2026-08-18T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1787011200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Med Leg J"],"abstract":"<jats:p>There are two management strategies for the early management of acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI); 10\u201312\u2009weeks bed-rest or rapid mobilisation (typically following surgery to stabilise an unstable spinal column injury). A recent review has demonstrated poor outcomes with rapid mobilisation with up to 13.2% deteriorating neurologically (0% in one of the conservative series) and 24%\u201333% of cases failing to improve to walking (compared with the conservative cases). The Montgomery and McCulloch SC judgements mandate that the benefits, risks and alternatives to any proposed treatment are discussed with patients. Previously there was no duty of care to explain the risks and alternatives to rapid mobilisation. There is no decided case but in the light of current knowledge the inferiority of rapid mobilisation, and the alternative of conservative treatment with better outcomes should be explained to patients. A failure to do so could be negligent in respect of consent for treatment.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1177\/00258172261455440","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,18]],"date-time":"2026-08-18T11:17:25Z","timestamp":1787051845000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Consent is a new cause of action"],"prefix":"10.1177","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0622-8853","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Nicholas","family":"Todd","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Consultant Neurosurgeon and Spinal Surgeon, Newcastle Nuffield Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,18]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_2_2_2","unstructured":"NICE. Spinal injury: assessment and initial management. NG41 (2016 accessed 24 March 2026)."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_3_2","first-page":"273","article-title":"Physiological instability of the spinal cord following injury","volume":"31","author":"El Masry WS","year":"1993","unstructured":"El Masry WS. Physiological instability of the spinal cord following injury. Paraplegia 1993; 31: 273\u2013275.","journal-title":"Paraplegia"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/sc.1969.30"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.108B3.BJJ-2025-1373"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_6_2","first-page":"337","article-title":"Survey of the neurological evolution of 300 spinal cord injuries seen within 24 hours after injury","volume":"18","author":"Philippi R","year":"1980","unstructured":"Philippi R, Kuhn W, Zach GA, et al. Survey of the neurological evolution of 300 spinal cord injuries seen within 24 hours after injury. Paraplegia 1980; 18: 337\u2013346.","journal-title":"Paraplegia"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.apmr.2020.05.016"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_8_2","unstructured":"British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) Standards-for-Specialist-Rehabilitation-of-SCI-Final-Sept-2022.pdf (accessed 7 April 2026)."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_9_2","unstructured":"Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_10_2","unstructured":"Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] UKHL 46; [1998] AC 232; [1997] 4 All ER 771; [1997] 3 WLR 1151 (13th November 1997)."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_11_2","unstructured":"Hucks v. Cole [1993] 4 Med. L.R. 393."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_12_2","unstructured":"Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 para 8."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_13_2","unstructured":"McCulloch and others (Appellants) v Forth Valley Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland) [2023] UKSC 2."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_14_2","article-title":"Workload pressure no defence against clinical negligence, barrister warns","volume":"357","author":"Rimmer A.","year":"2017","unstructured":"Rimmer A. Workload pressure no defence against clinical negligence, barrister warns. BMJ 2017; 357: j2103.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_15_2","unstructured":"Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2."}],"container-title":["Medico-Legal Journal"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/00258172261455440","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1177\/00258172261455440","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/00258172261455440","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,21]],"date-time":"2026-08-21T07:59:27Z","timestamp":1787299167000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/00258172261455440"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,18]]},"references-count":14,"alternative-id":["10.1177\/00258172261455440"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/00258172261455440","relation":{},"ISSN":["0025-8172","2042-1834"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0025-8172","type":"print"},{"value":"2042-1834","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,18]]},"article-number":"00258172261455440"}}