Evidence That Nurses Need to Participate in Diagnosis: Lessons From Malpractice Claims.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
There is a pressing need for nurses to contribute as equals to the diagnostic process. The purpose of this article is twofold: (a) to describe the contributing factors in diagnosis-related and failure-to-monitor malpractice claims in which nurses are named the primary responsible party and (b) to describe actions healthcare leaders can take to enhance the role of nurses in diagnosis.Methods
We conducted a review of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company Strategies' repository of malpractice claims, which contain approximately 30% of United States claims. We analyzed the malpractice claims related to diagnosis (n = 139) and physiologic monitoring (n = 647) naming nurses as the primary responsible party from 2007 to 2016. We used logistic regression to determine the association of contributing factors to likelihood of death, indemnity, and expenses incurred.Results
Diagnosis-related cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with a significantly higher likelihood of death (odds ratio [OR] = 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50-6.03). Physiologic monitoring cases listing communication among providers as a contributing factor were associated with significantly higher likelihood of death (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.49-3.27), higher indemnity incurred (U.S. $86,781, 95% CI = $18,058-$175,505), and higher expenses incurred (U.S. $20,575, 95% CI = $3685-$37,465).Conclusions
Nurses are held legally accountable for their role in diagnosis. Raising system-wide awareness of the critical role and responsibility of nurses in the diagnostic process and enhancing nurses' knowledge and skill to fulfill those responsibilities are essential to improving diagnosis.
SUBMITTER: Gleason KT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7893643 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5134343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of improved patient safety practices with medical malpractice claims and costs in the perinatal units of acute care hospitals.Data sourcesMalpractice and harm data from participating hospitals; litigation records and medical malpractice claims data from American Excess Insurance Exchange, RRG, whose data are managed by Premier Insurance Management Services, Inc. (owned by Premier Inc., a health care improvement company).Study designA quasi-experimental prospective design to compare baseline and postintervention data. Statistical significance tests for differences were performed using chi-square, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and t-test.Data collectionClaims data were collected and evaluated by experienced senior claims managers through on-site claim audits to evaluate claim frequency, severity, and financial information. Data were provided to the analyzing institution through confidentiality contracts.Principal findingsThere is a significant reduction in the number of perinatal malpractice claims paid, losses paid, and indemnity payments (43.9 percent, 77.6 percent, and 84.6 percent, respectively) following interventions to improve perinatal patient safety and reduce perinatal harm. This compares with no significant reductions in the nonperinatal claims in the same hospitals during the same time period.ConclusionsThe number of perinatal malpractice claims and dollar amount of claims payments decreased significantly in the participating hospitals, while there was no significant decrease in nonperinatal malpractice claims activity in the same hospitals.
| S-EPMC5134345 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5463541 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9918873 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4633452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designRetrospective cross-sectional study.ObjectiveTo investigate the prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors of spine-related malpractice claims in China in a 2-year period.MethodsThe arbitration files of the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) were reviewed for spine-related malpractice claims. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were conducted on claim characteristics, clinical data, plaintiff's main allegations, and arbitration outcomes.ResultsA total of 288 cases of spinal claims filed in the CMA between January 2016 and December 2017 were included. Most claims were found in lumbar degenerative disorders (59.4%), lumbar trauma (13.2%), and cervical degenerative disorders (11.8%). The most common adverse events (AEs) leading to claims were new neurologic deficit (NND) (47.6%), infection (11.5%), and insufficient symptom relief (10.4%). The most common patient allegation was surgical error (66.0%), although the main arbitrated cause of AEs was disease/treatment itself (49.0%), while providers were judged as mainly responsible in only 47.3% cases. In multivariate regression analysis, cervical spine, misdiagnosis/mistreatment, and unpredictable emergency correlated with more severe damage to patients; minimally invasive surgery was predictive of judgment in plaintiff's favor, while claims in the eastern region and unpredictable emergencies were predictive of defendant's favor; only NND was associated with being arbitrated as surgical error in surgical cases where surgeons accepted major liability.ConclusionThe current study provided a descriptive overview and risk factor analysis of spine-related malpractice claims in China. Gaining improved understanding of the facts and causes of malpractice claims may help providers reduce the risk of claims and subsequent litigation.
| S-EPMC10448087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this systematic review was to examine the epidemiology of malpractice claims in primary care. A computerised systematic literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they reported original data (≥10 cases) pertinent to malpractice claims, were based in primary care and were published in the English language. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach. Primary care. Malpractice claimants. Malpractice claim (defined as a written demand for compensation for medical injury). We recorded: medical misadventure cited in claims, missed/delayed diagnoses cited in claims, outcome of claims, prevalence of claims and compensation awarded to claimants. Of the 7152 articles retrieved by electronic search, a total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative analysis. Twenty-eight studies presented data from medical indemnity malpractice claims databases and six studies presented survey data. Fifteen studies were based in the USA, nine in the UK, seven in Australia, one in Canada and two in France. The commonest medical misadventure resulting in claims was failure to or delay in diagnosis, which represented 26-63% of all claims across included studies. Common missed or delayed diagnoses included cancer and myocardial infarction in adults and meningitis in children. Medication error represented the second commonest domain representing 5.6-20% of all claims across included studies. The prevalence of malpractice claims in primary care varied across countries. In the USA and Australia when compared with other clinical disciplines, general practice ranked in the top five specialties accounting for the most claims, representing 7.6-20% of all claims. However, the majority of claims were successfully defended. This review of malpractice claims in primary care highlights diagnosis and medication error as areas to be prioritised in developing educational strategies and risk management systems.
| S-EPMC3693415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Starting from an extensive database, pooling 9 years of data from the top three insurance brokers in Italy, and containing 38125 reported claims due to alleged cases of medical malpractice, we use an inhomogeneous Poisson process to model the number of medical malpractice claims in Italy. The intensity of the process is allowed to vary over time, and it depends on a set of covariates, like the size of the hospital, the medical department and the complexity of the medical operations performed. We choose the combination medical department by hospital as the unit of analysis. Together with the number of claims, we also model the associated amounts paid by insurance companies, using a two-stage regression model. In particular, we use logistic regression for the probability that a claim is closed with a zero payment, whereas, conditionally on the fact that an amount is strictly positive, we make use of lognormal regression to model it as a function of several covariates. The model produces estimates and forecasts that are relevant to both insurance companies and hospitals, for quality assurance, service improvement and cost reduction.
| S-EPMC4831812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIdentify clinical opportunities to intervene to prevent a malpractice event and determine the proportion of malpractice claims potentially preventable by clinical decision support (CDS).Materials and methodsCross-sectional review of closed malpractice claims over seven years from one malpractice insurance company and seven hospitals in the Boston area. For each event, clinical opportunities to intervene to avert the malpractice event and the presence or absence of CDS that might have a role in preventing the event, were assigned by a panel of expert raters. Compensation paid out to resolve a claim (indemnity), was associated with each CDS type.ResultsOf the 477 closed malpractice cases, 359 (75.3%) were categorized as substantiated and 195 (54%) had at least one opportunity to intervene. Common opportunities to intervene related to performance of procedure, diagnosis, and fall prevention. We identified at least one CDS type for 63% of substantiated claims. The 41 CDS types identified included clinically significant test result alerting, diagnostic decision support and electronic tracking of instruments. Cases with at least one associated intervention accounted for $40.3 million (58.9%) of indemnity.DiscussionCDS systems and other forms of health information technology (HIT) are expected to improve quality of care, but their potential to mitigate risk had not previously been quantified. Our results suggest that, in addition to their known benefits for quality and safety, CDS systems within HIT have a potential role in decreasing malpractice payments.ConclusionMore than half of malpractice events and over $40 million of indemnity were potentially preventable with CDS.
| S-EPMC4187091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic errors are prevalent and associated with increased economic burden; however, little is known about their characteristics at the national level in Japan. This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and indemnity payment in cases of diagnostic errors using Japan's largest database of national claims.MethodsWe analyzed characteristics of diagnostic error cases closed between 1961 and 2017, accessed through the national Japanese malpractice claims database. We compared diagnostic error-related claims (DERC) with non-diagnostic error-related claims (non-DERC) in terms of indemnity, clinical outcomes, and factors underlying physicians' diagnostic errors.ResultsAll 1,802 malpractice claims were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 33 years (interquartile range = 10-54), and 54.2% were men. Deaths were the most common outcome of claims (939/1747; 53.8%). In total, 709 (39.3%, 95% CI: 37.0%-41.6%) DERC cases were observed. The adjusted total billing amount, acceptance rate, adjusted median claims payments, and proportion of deaths were significantly higher in DERC than non-DERC cases. Departments of internal medicine and surgery were 1.42 and 1.55 times more likely, respectively, to have DERC cases than others. Claims involving the emergency room (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.88) and outpatient office (adjusted OR = 2.87) were more likely to be DERC than other cases. The initial diagnoses most likely to lead to diagnostic error were upper respiratory tract infection, non-bleeding digestive tract disease, and "no abnormality."ConclusionsCases of diagnostic errors produced severe patient outcomes and were associated with high indemnity. These cases were frequently noted in general exam and emergency rooms as well as internal medicine and surgery departments and were initially considered to be common, mild diseases.
| S-EPMC7398551 | biostudies-literature