Dataset Information

Nature of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Radiation Oncologists.

ABSTRACT: To examine characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving radiation oncologists closed during a 10-year period.Malpractice claims filed against radiation oncologists from 2003 to 2012 collected by a nationwide liability insurance trade association were analyzed. Outcomes included the nature of claims and indemnity payments, including associated presenting diagnoses, procedures, alleged medical errors, and injury severity. We compared the likelihood of a claim resulting in payment in relation to injury severity categories (death as referent) using binomial logistic regression.There were 362 closed claims involving radiation oncology, 102 (28%) of which were paid, resulting in $38 million in indemnity payments. The most common alleged errors included "improper performance" (38% of closed claims, 18% were paid; 29% [$11 million] of total indemnity), "errors in diagnosis" (25% of closed claims, 46% were paid; 44% [$17 million] of total indemnity), and "no medical misadventure" (14% of closed claims, 8% were paid; less than 1% [$148,000] of total indemnity). Another physician was named in 32% of claims, and consent issues/breach of contract were cited in 18%. Claims for injury resulting in death represented 39% of closed claims and 25% of total indemnity. "Improper performance" was the primary alleged error associated with injury resulting in death. Compared with claims involving death, major temporary injury (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-5.85, P=.009), significant permanent injury (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.48-6.46, P=.003), and major permanent injury (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.89-16.15, P=.002) had a higher likelihood of a claim resulting in indemnity payment.Improper performance was the most common alleged malpractice error. Claims involving significant or major injury were more likely to be paid than those involving death. Insights into the nature of liability claims against radiation oncologists may help direct efforts to improve quality of care and minimize the risk of being sued.

SUBMITTER: Marshall D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5463541 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nature of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Radiation Oncologists.

Marshall Deborah D Tringale Kathryn K Connor Michael M Punglia Rinaa R Recht Abram A Hattangadi-Gluth Jona J

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20170116 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To examine characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving radiation oncologists closed during a 10-year period.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Malpractice claims filed against radiation oncologists from 2003 to 2012 collected by a nationwide liability insurance trade association were analyzed. Outcomes included the nature of claims and indemnity payments, including associated presenting diagnoses, procedures, alleged medical errors, and injury severity. We compared the lik ...[more]

PMID: 28586962

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe success of newly introduced surgical techniques is generally primarily assessed by surgical outcome measures. However, data on medical liability should concomitantly be used to evaluate provided care as they give a unique insight into substandard care from patient's point of view. The aim of this study was to analyze the number and type of medical claims after laparoscopic gynecologic procedures since the introduction of advanced laparoscopy two decades ago. Secondly, our objective was to identify trends and/or risk factors associated with these claims.MethodsTo identify the claims, we searched the databases of the two largest medical liability mutual insurance companies in The Netherlands (MediRisk and Centramed), covering together 96% of the Dutch hospitals. All claims related to laparoscopic gynecologic surgery and filed between 1993 and 2015 were included.ResultsA total of 133 claims met our inclusion criteria, of which 54 were accepted claims (41%) and 79 rejected (59%). The number of claims remained relatively constant over time. The majority of claims were filed for visceral and/or vascular injuries (82%), specifically to the bowel (40%) and ureters (20%). More than one-third of the injuries were entry related (38%) and 77% of the claims were filed after non-advanced procedures. A delay in diagnosing injuries was the primary reason for financial compensation (33%). The median sum paid to patients was €12,000 (500-848,689). In 90 claims, an attorney was defending the patient (83% for the accepted claims; 57% for the rejected claims).ConclusionThe number of claims remained relatively constant during the study period. Most claims were provoked by bowel and ureter injuries. Delay in recognizing injuries was the most encountered reason for granting financial compensation. Entering the abdominal cavity during laparoscopy continues to be a potential dangerous step. As a result, gynecologists are recommended to thoroughly counsel patients undergoing any laparoscopic procedure, even regarding the risk of entry-related injuries.

Project description:ImportancePredictive factors associated with increased risk of medical malpractice litigation have been identified, including severity of injury, physician sex, and error in diagnosis. However, there is a paucity of literature investigating informed consent in spinal surgery malpractice.ObjectiveTo investigate the failure to obtain informed consent as an allegation in medical malpractice claims for patients undergoing a spinal procedure.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, a national medicolegal database was searched for malpractice claim cases related to spinal surgery for all years available (ie, January 1, 1980, through December 31, 2015).Main outcomes and measuresFailure to obtain informed consent and associated medical malpractice case verdict.ResultsA total of 233 patients (117 [50.4%] male and 116 [49.8%] female; 80 with no informed consent allegation and 153 who cited lack of informed consent) who underwent spinal surgery and filed a malpractice claim were studied (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [13.1] years in the total group, 45.8 [12.9] years in the control group, and 47.9 [13.3] years in the informed consent group). Median interval between year of surgery and year of verdict was 5.4 years (interquartile range, 4-7 years). The most common informed consent allegations were failure to explain risks and adverse effects of surgery (52 [30.4%]) and failure to explain alternative treatment options (17 [9.9%]). In bivariate analysis, patients in the control group were more likely to require additional surgery (45 [56.3%] vs 53 [34.6%], P?=?.002) and have more permanent injuries compared with the informed consent group (46 [57.5%] vs 63 [42.0%], P?=?.03). On multivariable regression analysis, permanent injuries were more often associated with indemnity payment after a plaintiff verdict (odds ratio [OR], 3.12; 95% CI, 1.46-6.65; P?=?.003) or a settlement (OR, 6.26; 95% CI, 1.06-36.70; P?=?.04). Informed consent allegations were significantly associated with less severe (temporary or emotional) injury (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.97; P?=?.04). In addition, allegations of informed consent were found to be predictive of a defense verdict vs a plaintiff ruling (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.98; P?=?.046) or settlement (OR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.15; P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceLack of informed consent is an important cause of medical malpractice litigation. Although associated with a lower rate of indemnity payments, malpractice lawsuits, including informed consent allegations, still present a time, money, and reputation toll for physicians. The findings of this study can therefore help to improve preoperative discussions to protect spinal surgeons from malpractice claims and ensure that patients are better informed.

Project description:ObjectivesThe study analysed medical malpractice claims to assess patient safety in hospitals. The information derived from malpractice claims reflects potential risks and could help lead to reducing medical errors and improving patient safety.Design, settingWe analysed 4380 medical malpractice claims from 351 grade-A tertiary hospitals in China for 2008-2017. We examined the characteristics of medical errors and patient safety, including the types of medical errors, proportionate liabilities and payments for medical malpractice in different clinical specialties.Main outcome measuresWe assessed claim characteristics, payment amounts and liability.ResultsOur data analysis demonstrated that 72.5% of the claims involved medical errors, with average payments of US$31 430. The hospital's errors in medical malpractice resulted in 41.4% average liability in patient injury payments. Most medical malpractice cases occurred in Shanghai (817 claims, 18.7%) and Beijing (468 claims, 10.7%). The highest risks for medical error and malpractice claims were related to orthopaedics (11.3% of all claims, 72.8% with medical errors) and obstetrics and gynaecology (10.0% of all claims, 76.0% with medical errors). The highest rates related to proportionate liabilities were observed in otolaryngology (51.9%) and endocrinology (47.7%). Respiratory medicine had the highest proportion of claims in death rates (77.3%). Medical technology errors accounted for 91.8% of the claims and medical ethics errors for 5.8%. The highest average payment was found in cardiovascular surgery (US$41 733) and the lowest in stomatology (US$8822).ConclusionsA previous study found that grade-A tertiary hospitals in China have similar medical error rates to general Chinese hospitals. 36Different specialties had different risk characteristics regarding medical errors, payments and proportionate liabilities. Orthopaedics had the highest number of malpractices claims and higher proportionate liability but lower death rates.

Project description:Study questionIs a higher use of resources by physicians associated with a reduced risk of malpractice claims?MethodsUsing data on nearly all admissions to acute care hospitals in Florida during 2000-09 linked to malpractice history of the attending physician, this study investigated whether physicians in seven specialties with higher average hospital charges in a year were less likely to face an allegation of malpractice in the following year, adjusting for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and diagnosis. To provide clinical context, the study focused on obstetrics, where the choice of caesarean deliveries are suggested to be influenced by defensive medicine, and whether obstetricians with higher adjusted caesarean rates in a year had fewer alleged malpractice incidents the following year.Study answer and limitationsThe data included 24,637 physicians, 154,725 physician years, and 18,352,391 hospital admissions; 4342 malpractice claims were made against physicians (2.8% per physician year). Across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. For example, among internists, the probability of experiencing an alleged malpractice incident in the following year ranged from 1.5% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 1.7%) in the bottom spending fifth ($19,725 (£12,800; €17,400) per hospital admission) to 0.3% (0.2% to 0.5%) in the top fifth ($39,379 per hospital admission). In six of the specialties, a greater use of resources was associated with statistically significantly lower subsequent rates of alleged malpractice incidents. A principal limitation of this study is that information on illness severity was lacking. It is also uncertain whether higher spending is defensively motivated.What this study addsWithin specialty and after adjustment for patient characteristics, higher resource use by physicians is associated with fewer malpractice claims.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (grant 1DP5OD017897-01 to ABJ) and National Institute of Aging (R37 AG036791 to JB). The authors have no competing interests or additional data to share.

Project description:ImportanceMedical malpractice litigation against surgical residents is rarely discussed owing to assumed legal doctrine of respondeat superior, or "let the master answer."ObjectiveTo better understand lawsuits targeting surgical trainees to prevent future litigation.Design, setting, and participantsWestlaw, an online legal research database containing legal records from across the United States, was retrospectively reviewed for malpractice cases involving surgical interns, residents, or fellows from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2015. Infant-related obstetric and ophthalmologic procedures were excluded.ExposuresInvolvement in a medical malpractice case.Main outcomes and measuresData were collected on patient demographics, case characteristics, and outcomes and were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsDuring a 10-year period, 87 malpractice cases involving surgical trainees were identified. A total of 50 patients were female (57%), and 79 were 18 years of age or older (91%), with a median patient age of 44.5 years (interquartile range, 45-56 years). A total of 67 cases (77%) resulted in death or permanent disability. Most cases involved elective surgery (61 [70%]) and named a junior resident as a defendant (24 of 35 [69%]). Cases more often questioned the perioperative medical knowledge, decision making errors, and injuries (53 [61%]: preoperative, 19 of 53 [36%]) and postoperative, 34 of 53 [64%]) than intraoperative errors and injuries (43 [49%]). Junior residents were involved primarily with lawsuits related to medical decision making (21 of 24 [87%]). Residents' failure to evaluate the patient was cited in 10 cases (12%) and lack of direct supervision by attending physicians was cited in 48 cases (55%). A total of 42 cases (48%) resulted in a jury verdict or settlement in favor of the plaintiff, with a median payout of $900 000 (range, $1852 to $32 million).Conclusions and relevanceThis review of malpractice cases involving surgical residents highlights the importance of perioperative management, particularly among junior residents, and the importance of appropriate supervision by attending physicians as targets for education on litigation prevention.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to identify the most frequent reasons for orthopedic medical malpractice, gain insight into the related patient demographics and clinical characteristics, and identify the independent factors associated with it.MethodsWe collected and analyzed the demographic and injury characteristics, hospital levels and treatments, medical errors, and orthopedist's degree of responsibility for the patients who were subject to orthopedic medical malpractice at our institution. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with the orthopedist's degree of responsibility in the medical malpractice cases.ResultsWe included 1922 cases of medical malpractice in the final analysis. There were 1195 and 727 men and women, respectively (62.2% and 37.8%, respectively). Of the total patients, 1810, 1038, 1558, 1441, and 414 patients (94.2%, 54.0%, 81.1%, 75.0%, and 21.5%, respectively) were inpatients, had closed injuries, underwent surgery, were trauma cases, and had preoperative comorbidities, respectively. Most medical malpractice cases were in patients with fractures and spinal degenerative disease (1229 and 253 cases; 63.9% and 13.2%, respectively), and occurred in city-level hospitals (1006 cases, 52.3%), which were located in the eastern part of china (1001, 52.1%), including Jiangsu and Zhejiang (279 and 233 cases, 14.52% and 52.1%, respectively). Between 2016 and 2017, the orthopedist's degree of responsibility in medical malpractice claims were deemed as full, primary, equal, secondary, and minor in 135, 654, 77, 716, and 340 orthopedists (7.0%, 34.0%, 4.0%, 37.3%, and 17.7%). Most medical errors made by orthopedists in cases of medical malpractice were related to failure to supervise or monitor cases, improper performance of procedures, and failure to instruct or communicate with the patient (736, 716, and 423 cases; 38.3%, 37.3%, and 22.0%, respectively). The multivariate analysis found that patients with preoperative comorbidities, who sustained humerus injuries, who were aged ≥65 years, who were treated by doctors who failed to supervise or monitor them, and who were treated at the provincial and city level hospitals were more likely to claim that the orthopedist bore a serious degree of responsibility in the medical malpractice case.ConclusionsOur results provide detailed information on the plaintiff demographics, clinical characteristics, and factors associated with medical malpractice. Medical malpractice is related to poor treatment outcomes. The first preventative measure that is required is a comprehensive improvement in the medical staff quality, mainly through medical ethics cultivation, and professional ability and technique training. Additionally, failure to supervise or monitor cases was the leading cause of medical malpractice and one of the factors that led to orthopedists bearing an equal and higher responsibility for medical malpractice. Orthopedists should improve patient supervision, especially when treating older patients and those with preoperative comorbidities and humerus injuries.

Dataset Information

Nature of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Radiation Oncologists.

Publications

Nature of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Radiation Oncologists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets