Dataset Information

Medical malpractice claims in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a Dutch overview of 20 years.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Methods

To 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.

Results

A 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).

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Sandberg EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5715033 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Medical malpractice claims in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a Dutch overview of 20 years.

Sandberg Evelien M EM Bordewijk Esmée M EM Klemann Désirée D Driessen Sara R C SRC Twijnstra Andries R H ARH Jansen Frank Willem FW

Surgical endoscopy 20170620 12

<h4>Background</h4>The 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 ...[more]

PMID: 28634629

Similar Datasets

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:PurposeTo examine characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving radiation oncologists closed during a 10-year period.Methods and materialsMalpractice 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsImproper 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.

Project description:ImportanceMany physicians believe that most medical malpractice claims are random events. This study assessed the association of prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future paid claims; whether public disclosure of prior paid claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time.ObjectiveTo examine the association of 1 or more prior paid medical malpractice claims with future paid claims.Design, setting, and participantsThis study assessed the association between prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future claims; whether public disclosure of prior claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time. This retrospective case-control study included all 881 876 licensed physicians in the US. All data analysis took place between July, 2018 and January, 2023.ExposurePaid medical malpractice claims.Main outcome and measuresAssociation between a prior paid medical malpractice claim and likelihood of a paid claim in a future period, compared with simulated results expected if paid claims are random events. Using the same outcomes, we also assessed whether public disclosure of paid claims affects future paid claim rates.ResultsThis study included all 881 876 physicians licensed to practice in the US at the time of the study. Overall, 3.3% of the 841 961 physicians with 0 paid claims in the prior period had 1 or more claims in the future period vs 12.4% of the 34 512 physicians with 1 paid claim in the prior period; 22.4% of the 4189 physicians with 2 paid claims in the prior period; and 37% of the 1214 physicians with 3 paid claims in the prior period. The association between prior claims and future claims was similar for high-medical-malpractice-risk and lower-risk specialties; 1 prior-period claim was associated with a 3.1 times higher likelihood of a future-period claim for high-risk specialties (95% CI, 2.8-3.4) vs a 4.2 times higher likelihood for lower-risk specialties (95% CI, 3.8-4.6). The predictive power of a prior paid claim for future claims declined gradually as the time since the prior claim increased, for prior or future periods up to 10 years. Public disclosure did not affect the association between prior and future paid claims.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of paid medical malpractice claims for all US physicians, a single prior paid claim was associated with substantial, long-lived higher future claim risk, independent of whether a physician was practicing in a high- or low-risk specialty, or whether a state publicly disclosed paid claims. Timely, noncoercive intervention, including education, has the potential to reduce future claims.

Project description:PURPOSE:To systematically investigate the frequency and types of allegations related to radiology practice handled by the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court in the past 10 years. METHODS:The Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court database was searched for verdicts concerning radiology practice between 2010 and 2019. The association between the number of verdicts and time (years) was assessed by Spearman's rho. Other data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:There were 48 verdicts (mean 4.8 per year). There was no significant association between the number of verdicts and time (Spearman's rho <?0.001, p?=?0.99). Most allegations were in breast imaging and musculoskeletal radiology (each 18.8%), followed by interventional radiology, head and neck imaging, and abdominal imaging (each 12.5%), neuroradiology and vascular imaging (each 10.4%), and chest imaging (4.2%). There were 46 allegations against radiologists (95.8%) and 2 against residents (4.2%). The most common allegation (37.5%) was error in diagnosis. In 20.8% of verdicts, the allegation was judged (partially) founded; disciplinary measures were warnings (n?=?8) and reprimands (n?=?2). An appeal was submitted by the patient in 11 cases and by the radiologist in 3 cases. All appeals by patients were rejected, whereas 2 of the 3 appeals by radiologists were granted and previously imposed disciplinary measures were reversed. CONCLUSION:Allegations against radiologists at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court are relatively few, their number has remained stable over the past 10 years, and a minority were judged to be (partially) founded. We can learn from the cases presented in this article, which may improve patient care. KEY POINTS:• The frequency of allegations against radiologists at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court is relatively low and has not exhibited any temporal change over the past 10 years. • These allegations reflect patient dissatisfaction, but this infrequently equals malpractice. • Knowledge of the circumstances under which these allegations have arisen may improve patient care.

Project description:Background: Laparoscopy is rapidly replacing laparotomy in the field of gynecologic surgery. Generally, there are limited data concerning the utility of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in gynecologic surgery. Specifically, in Saudi Arabia, a third-world country, data are further limited; only one related study has been conducted so far. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively report our single-institutional experience of SILS in terms of feasibility, safety and perioperative outcomes in the management of various gynecologic conditions. Methods: The study took place at the Women's Specialized Hospital, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. From January 2012 to May 2016, all gynecologic patients who underwent SILS procedures were analyzed for pre-, intra- and post-operative details. SILS was performed using a single multi-port trocar and standard laparoscopic instruments. Results: A total of 54 patients underwent 66 SILS procedures. The median age and body mass index (BMI) were 36 years and 28.2 kg/m 2, respectively. Fourteen patients (26%) had ? 1 previous abdominal and/or pelvic surgeries. Twenty-four patients (44.4%) were nulliparous. The three most commonly performed SILS procedures were unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (45.5%) and unilateral ovarian cystectomy (27.3%) and adhesiolysis (6.1%). The median operative time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 74 min, 50 ml and 1 day, respectively. Three patients required conversion to laparotomy, as follows: unidentified non-stopping bleeding source (n=1) and endometriosis stage IV resulting in difficult dissection (n=2). One patient developed post-operative incisional hernia that was treated surgically. The median patients' post-operative pain (according to Wong-Baker FACES Foundation pain rating scale) within 4 hours was 2. At 4-week post-operatively, the median wound scar length (measured at outpatient clinic) was 2 cm. Conclusions: SILS is feasible, safe and associated with acceptable clinical and surgical outcomes.

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.

Dataset Information

Medical malpractice claims in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a Dutch overview of 20 years.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Medical malpractice claims in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a Dutch overview of 20 years.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets