Concept of defensive medicine and litigation among Sudanese doctors working in obstetrics and gynecology.

Abstract

BackgroundObstetrics and gynaecology always has reputation for being a highly litigious. The field of obstetrics and gynaecology is surrounded by different circumstances that stimulate the doctors to practice defensive medicine.MethodsThis study was directed to assess the extent and the possible effect of defensive medicine phenomenon (in term of knowledge and prevalence) on medical decision making among different grades of obstetric and gynaecologic Sudanese doctors, and to determine any experience of medical litigations with respect to sources and factors associated with it (in term of area of work, characteristics of the area at which the doctors worked, professionalism, hospitals systems…ect).ResultsA total of 117 doctors were approached, their distribution according to job description was as follow: consultants (42.7 %, 50\\117) registrars (34.2 %, 40\\117) and specialists (23.1 %, 27\\117). The majority 89.7 % had the impression that litigation against doctors are increasing and 27.6 % had a direct experience of litigation. In this study less than one half (42.7 %) of the surveyed doctors knew the concept of defensive medicine and 71.8 % reported practicing one or another form of defensive medicine. The different sources of the litigations reported by the doctors included: maternal death (n = 15), perinatal death (n = 5), other {misdiagnosis, intra-uterine fetal death, uterine perforation, rupture uterus} (n = 4), fetal distress (n = 3), injury to viscera (n = 3) and shoulder dystocia (n = 2). In this study the experience of medical litigation was significantly observed among those who worked in area of blame culture (90.6 % Vs 56.5 %, P = 0.000). In logistic regression model, there was no significant difference between those who knew the concept of defence medicine and those who didn’t.ConclusionThere should be strategic plan to reduce the practice of defensive medicine and medical litigation against doctors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0095-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.