Surgeon demographics and medical malpractice in adult reconstruction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McGrory BJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2628505 | biostudies-other | 2009 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC5833625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We use variation in the generosity of local juries to identify the causal impact of medical malpractice liability on social welfare. Growth in malpractice payments contributed at most 5 percentage points to the 33% total real growth in medical expenditures from 1990-2003. On the other hand, malpractice leads to modest mortality reductions; the value of these more than likely exceeds the costs of malpractice liability. Therefore, reducing malpractice liability is unlikely to have a major impact on health care spending, and unlikely to be cost-effective over conventionally accepted values of a statistical life.
| S-EPMC3601788 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5463541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We assess the potential for medical liability forces to deter medical errors and improve health care treatment quality, identifying liability's influence by drawing on variations in the manner by which states formulate the negligence standard facing physicians. Using hospital discharge records from the National Hospital Discharge Survey and clinically-validated quality metrics inspired by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, we find evidence suggesting that treatment quality may improve upon reforms that expect physicians to adhere to higher quality clinical standards. We do not find evidence, however, suggesting that treatment quality may deteriorate following reforms to liability standards that arguably condone the delivery of lower quality care. Similarly, we do not find evidence of deterioration in health care quality following remedy-focused liability reforms such as caps on non-economic damages awards.
| S-EPMC5417553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTort reform may affect health insurance premiums both by reducing medical malpractice premiums and by reducing the extent of defensive medicine. The objective of this study is to estimate the effects of noneconomic damage caps on the premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance.Data sources/study settingEmployer premium data and plan/establishment characteristics were obtained from the 1999 through 2004 Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Insurance Surveys. Damage caps were obtained and dated based on state annotated codes, statutes, and judicial decisions.Study designFixed effects regression models were run to estimate the effects of the size of inflation-adjusted damage caps on the weighted average single premiums.Data collection/extraction methodsState tort reform laws were identified using Westlaw, LEXIS, and statutory compilations. Legislative repeal and amendment of statutes and court decisions resulting in the overturning or repealing state statutes were also identified using LEXIS.Principal findingsUsing a variety of empirical specifications, there was no statistically significant evidence that noneconomic damage caps exerted any meaningful influence on the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that tort reforms have not translated into insurance savings.
| S-EPMC2614003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Medical malpractice accounts for more than $55 billion of annual health care costs. Updated malpractice risk to surgeons and physicians related to upper extremity peripheral nerve injury has not been published. Methods: A comprehensive database analysis of upper extremity nerve injury claims between 1995 and 2014 in the United States was conducted using the Medical Professional Liability Association Data Sharing Project, representing 24 major insurance companies. Results: Nerve injury in the upper extremity accounted for 614 (0.3%) malpractice claims (total of 188 323). Common presenting diagnoses included carpal tunnel syndrome (41%), upper extremity fractures (19%), and traumatic nerve injuries to the shoulder or upper limb (8%). Improper performance (49% of total claims) and claims without evidence of medical error (19%) were the most common malpractice suits. Orthopedic surgeons were the most frequently targeted specialists (42%). In all, 65% of nerve injury claims originated from operative procedures in a hospital, 59% of claims were dismissed or withdrawn prior to trial, and 30% resulted in settlements. Thirty-three percent of claims resulted in an indemnity payment to an injured party, with an average payout of $203 592 per successful suit. Only 8% of claims resulted in a completed trial and verdict, and verdicts were overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant (83%). Conclusions: Most malpractice claims from peripheral nerve injuries in the United States arise from the management of common diagnoses, occur in the operating room, and allege improper performance. Strategies to reduce malpractice risk should emphasize the management of common conditions and patient-physician communication.
| S-EPMC8283106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study examines the effect of physician medical malpractice liability exposure on primary Cesarean and vaginal births after Cesarean (VBACs). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:Secondary data on hospital births from Florida Hospital Inpatient File, physician characteristics from American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and physician malpractice claim history from Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. STUDY DESIGN:Our study estimates the effects of physician malpractice liability exposure on Cesareans and VBACs using panel data and a multivariate, fixed effects model. DATA COLLECTION:We merge three secondary data sources based on unique physician license numbers between 1994 and 2010. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We find no evidence that the first malpractice claim affects primary Cesarean deliveries. We find, however, that the first malpractice claim decreases the likelihood of a VBAC (conditional on a prior Cesarean delivery) by 1.2-1.9 percentage points (approximately 10 percent relative to mean VBAC incidence). This finding is robust to focusing on obstetrics-related malpractice claims, as well as to considering different malpractice claims (first report, first severe report, and first lawsuit). CONCLUSIONS:Given the increase in both primary and repeat Cesarean deliveries, our results suggest that physician malpractice liability exposure is responsible for a relatively small share of the VBAC decrease.
| S-EPMC6052010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As genomic medicine expands, interest in how medical malpractice law will apply to such questions as whether and when to return new or updated genomic results has grown. Given that access to some genomic results (such as those pertaining to minors or those for which scientific interpretations are unsettled) is delayed for years, the "loss of chance" (LOC) doctrine is of particular potential relevance. Yet it has received relatively little attention among scholars of law and genomics. We performed legal research to determine the status of this malpractice doctrine across the United States and consider its potential applicability to genomic medicine. We further examined known genomic medicine malpractices to assess whether this doctrine had yet been invoked in that context. We identified a trend toward adoption of the LOC doctrine, finding 29 states (58%) have adopted, 15 states (30%) have rejected, and six states (12%) have deferred or not yet addressed the doctrine. Attempts to invoke or apply the doctrine in the known genomic medical malpractice cases were also found. While our findings do not provide cause for substantial concern, the availability of the LOC medical malpractice doctrine is a potentially important factor to consider when making programmatic decisions for genomic medicine. Future research examining whether liability risks posed by this doctrine prompt defensive medicine practices would be useful.
| S-EPMC8270012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of the current brief communication is to establish a discussion regarding level of expertise (LOE) documentation in future arthroplasty clinical studies and to document the trend in adoption of LOE among arthroplasty publications to date. A review of Arthroplasty Today, Journal of Arthroplasty (JOA), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), and International Orthopedics (IO) databases for original studies published between April 2016 and July 2020 was performed. A total of 105 articles were identified and evaluated in Arthroplasty Today, 1011 in JOA, 127 in JBJS, and 383 in IO. Of 1011 articles identified in JOA, only one manuscript (1/1011; 0.1%), by Uluyardimci et.al, included the LOE of the surgeon(s) involved in the study. No articles in Arthroplasty Today (0/125; 0%), JBJS (0/127; 0%), or IO (0/383; 0%) reported the LOE according to Tang's recommendations during the same period. Documenting LOE may provide readers with additional information for incorporation of novel techniques into their practices as well as identify procedures that require a baseline LOE for effective performance. Further evaluation of LOE criteria may improve the reliability of the numeric scale, while widespread adoption of this scale will allow future outcome analysis by LOE.
| S-EPMC7899946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveClinicians 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.MethodsClosed 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.
| S-EPMC7508944 | biostudies-literature