A comparative analysis of the discrimination conclusions for medical litigation cases of a hospital

Abstract

Objective To compare the differences found between the proportion of responsibility between in-house experts of the hospital and that of judicial appraisals for 52 cases of medical disputes of a hospital in recent years. Methods A total of 52 cases of disputes were selected, which were evaluated by the in-house experts screening meeting at a tertiary hospital in Beijing from 2015 to 2018.According to the causes of these disputes, these cases were divided into seven categories, calculating respectively the mean value of the proportion of judicial appraisal responsibility and that of in-house experts for all cases of the same category.The paired t test was used to compare the consistency of the above two methods. Results The overall level of judicial appraisal responsibility(35.00%)was significantly higher than the in-house expert screening(20.96%). Among them, the cases of improper selection of treatment plan, improper operation of surgery or insufficient evaluation of surgical difficulty risk, and medical disputes caused by complications, the degree of responsibility of the judicial appraisal institutions was quite different from that of in-house experts of the hospital. Conclusions Because the judicial appraisal agencies have certain difficulties in the identification of complex medical technology problems, it is recommended to establish a library of judicial appraisal experts as soon as possible to encourage the experts to participate in the trial of disputes. Key words: Medical disputes; Medical litigation; Judicial identification; Responsibility screening; Comparison