DOBINSON, I. (2009). Medical manslaughter. University Of Queensland Law Journal, 28(1), 101-112.The case involved the death of a patient during an eye operation. The leading authority in the case was the House of Lords decision in Adomako. The mechanical breathing tube inserted in the patient got disconnected during the operation. The alarms notified the person responsible for the restoration of the tube but the defendant did not act according to the requirements which in turn led to the death of the victim (Bryden, 2011).The quality control systems put in place included the presence of an alarm system to notify the caregiver in charge of any malfunctions. Ensuring that someone was in charge of the process at all time was also a quality control measure.There was room for improvement in the current system with the inclusion of different alarm systems to different caregivers. The presence of several people monitoring the same parameter in healthcare forms an important part of ensuring the system does not fail (Sohn, 2013).The primary aim of preventing possible occurrences of the same problem, it is important to ensure specific accountability of the people involved in the procedure. The failure of one individual costs the whole group with increased ill effects on the health of the patient. All players involved have to be accountable for the welfare of the patient at all time. Increasing the mode of notification to the target caregivers would also decrease the chances of negligence. Additional features to the alarm system can help in increasing the visibility of the anomaly. Addition of visual and auditory components and other technologic notification methods can increase response to the deviation in care.ReferencesBryden, D. a. (2011). The duty of care and medical negligence. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain, 11(4), 124-127.Sohn, D. H. (2013). Negligence, genuine error, and litigation. International journal of general medicine, 6, 49.