Dataset Information

Body of Evidence: Do Autopsy Findings Impact Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Clinicians may hesitate to advocate for autopsies out of concern for increased malpractice risk if the pathological findings at time of death differ from the clinical findings. We aimed to understand the impact of autopsy findings on malpractice claim outcomes.

Methods

Closed malpractice claims with loss dates between 1995 and 2015 involving death related to inpatient care at 3 Harvard Medical School hospitals were extracted from a captive malpractice insurer's database. These claims were linked to patients' electronic health records and their autopsy reports. Using the Goldman classification system, 2 physician reviewers blinded to claim outcome determined whether there was major, minor, or no discordance between the final clinical diagnoses and pathologic diagnoses. Claims were compared depending on whether an autopsy was performed and whether there was major versus minor/no clinical-pathologic discordance. Primary outcomes included percentage of claims paid through settlement or plaintiff verdict and the amount of indemnity paid, inflation adjusted.

Results

Of 293 malpractice claims related to an inpatient death that could be linked to patients' electronic health records, 89 claims (30%) had an autopsy performed by either the hospital or medical examiner. The most common claim allegation was an issue with clinician diagnosis, which was statistically less common in the autopsy group (18% versus 38%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in percentage of claims paid whether an autopsy was performed or not (42% versus 41%, P = 0.90) and no difference in median indemnity of paid claims after adjusting for number of defendants ($1,180,537 versus $906,518, P = 0.15). Thirty-one percent of claims with hospital autopsies performed demonstrated major discordance between autopsy and clinical findings. Claims with major clinical-pathologic discordance also did not have a statistically significant difference in percentage paid (44% versus 41%, P > 0.99) or amount paid ($895,954 versus $1,494,120, P = 0.10) compared with claims with minor or no discordance.

Conclusions

Although multiple factors determine malpractice claim outcome, in this cohort, claims in which an autopsy was performed did not result in more paid outcomes, even when there was major discordance between clinical and pathologic diagnoses.

SUBMITTER: Gartland RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7508944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundUsing malpractice claims cases as vignettes is a promising approach for improving clinical reasoning education (CRE), as malpractice claims can provide a variety of content- and context-rich examples. However, the effect on learning of adding information about a malpractice claim, which may evoke a deeper emotional response, is not yet clear. This study examined whether knowing that a diagnostic error resulted in a malpractice claim affects diagnostic accuracy and self-reported confidence in the diagnosis of future cases. Moreover, suitability of using erroneous cases with and without a malpractice claim for CRE, as judged by participants, was evaluated.MethodsIn the first session of this two-phased, within-subjects experiment, 81 first-year residents of general practice (GP) were exposed to both erroneous cases with (M) and erroneous cases without (NM) malpractice claim information, derived from a malpractice claims database. Participants rated suitability of the cases for CRE on a five-point Likert scale. In the second session, one week later, participants solved four different cases with the same diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy was measured with three questions, scored on a 0-1 scale: (1) What is your next step? (2) What is your differential diagnosis? (3) What is your most probable diagnosis and what is your level of certainty on this? Both subjective suitability and diagnostic accuracy scores were compared between the versions (M and NM) using repeated measures ANOVA.ResultsThere were no differences in diagnostic accuracy parameters (M vs. NM next step: 0.79 vs. 0.77, p = 0.505; differential diagnosis 0.68 vs. 0.75, p = 0.072; most probable diagnosis 0.52 vs. 0.57, p = 0.216) and self-reported confidence (53.7% vs. 55.8% p = 0.390) of diagnoses previously seen with or without malpractice claim information. Subjective suitability- and complexity scores for the two versions were similar (suitability: 3.68 vs. 3.84, p = 0.568; complexity 3.71 vs. 3.88, p = 0.218) and significantly increased for higher education levels for both versions.ConclusionThe similar diagnostic accuracy rates between cases studied with or without malpractice claim information suggests both versions are equally effective for CRE in GP training. Residents judged both case versions to be similarly suitable for CRE; both were considered more suitable for advanced than for novice learners.