MP02-18 MALPRACTICE TRENDS IN THE SETTING OF PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making I (MP02)1 Apr 2020MP02-18 MALPRACTICE TRENDS IN THE SETTING OF PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING Peter Sunaryo*, Gregory Mullen, Christine W Liaw, Eric Bortnick, and Jay Motola Peter Sunaryo*Peter Sunaryo* More articles by this author , Gregory MullenGregory Mullen More articles by this author , Christine W LiawChristine W Liaw More articles by this author , Eric BortnickEric Bortnick More articles by this author , and Jay MotolaJay Motola More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000816.018AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Medical malpractice (MP) is an important issue in our country. There has been controversy surrounding PSA testing and prostate cancer screening, specifically the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) whose 2012 guidelines advised against PSA testing and were modified in 2018. The purpose of this study is to identify factors leading to litigation and recent trends related to the screening of prostate cancer. METHODS: The Westlaw database was used to search for jury verdicts ranging from January 2000 to December 2018. Each case was examined for year of trial, patient age, specialty of defendant, alleged cause of MP, and the case outcome. RESULTS: Of 129 examined cases, 66% went to trial and of those, 69% were decided for the defendant. The mean settlement was $967,000 (K) while the mean verdict was $2.0 million (M). Primary care physicians (PCP) (73.7%) were the most cited defendants followed by urologists (U) (21.2%). There were no significant differences (NSD) between the mean verdict or settlement amount between U and PCP ($1.1M vs. $2.2 M, p = 0.23; $803K vs. $1.0M, p =0.47). The most common cause was failure to follow up for an elevated PSA (37%), followed by failing to get an initial PSA (31%). Lack of follow up for an elevated PSA led to significantly higher settlements when compared to failing to get an initial PSA, but verdicts were NSD ($1.0 M vs. $240K, p = 0.007; $1.8 M vs. $970K, p = 0.12). There was NSD between the mean amount of MP cases per year before and after the USPSTF recommendations (7.9 vs. 4.3, p = 0.03) as well as the mean settlement and mean plaintiff award ($970k vs. $970k, p =0.99; $2.1 M vs. $2.6 M, p = 0.44 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PSA testing is commonly cited in MP. There were no significant changes seen in the incidence of MP. This may be due to lag time from the time of filing a MP claim until its resolution. Limitations on testing may have future consequences and need to be monitored. Both PCP and U must continue to educate patients in order to minimize malpractice claims made in this setting. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e19-e19 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Peter Sunaryo* More articles by this author Gregory Mullen More articles by this author Christine W Liaw More articles by this author Eric Bortnick More articles by this author Jay Motola More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...