Lehren aus den Erfahrungen einer Schlichtungsstelle für Arzthaftpflichtfragen

Abstract

While other countries', e.g. the United States', experience with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in medical malpractice has been disappointing, German physicians have instituted extrajudicial claims resolution as an alternative to civil litigation: Established by the Arztekammern (corporate bodies of professional self-governance) in the mid-1970s, the Schlichtungsstellen (SchlSt--claims resolution panels) offer patients and doctors, on a voluntary basis, proceedings directed toward achieving a settlement. The number of cases submitted to these panels has been constantly growing since. In 90% of cases decided upon by the panel, civil litigation was avoided. Doctors can, as exemplified by the operation of the SchlSt, tackle difficult and complex problems and solve them--without being funded or directed by outside agencies. What can be learnt from being, as a physician member, associated with a SchlSt for several years? (1) Physicians--as Eddy has pointed out--must make decisions about complex problems under difficult conditions on the basis of inadequate information. Expert testimony suffers from similar uncertainties. Decisions on individual cases cannot be improved by external and necessarily generalized ruling (disease management programs, other directives). (2) Errors and adverse events in medical care have to be accepted as principally unavoidable. Most claims heard by the panel have to do with operations and--in the non-surgical specialties--with invasive procedures. Medical tasks of high complexity, as many operative and invasive procedures indeed are, seem to have an inherent accident-proneness. Therefore decisions as to operations and invasive procedures should be weighed with utmost care. More is not always better (3) 25% of the patients filing claims with the SchlSt complain of deficient doctor-patient-communication. Failure of doctors and staff to communicate adequately with the patients and with their professional contacts plays an important role as risk factor for negligence and injury and even as cause of disputes and claims. (4) The GP, the generalist in a profession characterized by specialization, has to treat a wide spectrum of diseases, wider than any specialist. As far as can be seen, he does his job well. He needs adequate--if possible personal--contact with and support by his colleagues involved in the treatment of the same patient.