Analysis Of Malpractice Claims Research Articles

CORR Insights®: Delayed Diagnosis Is the Primary Cause of Sarcoma Litigation: Analysis of Malpractice Claims in the United States.

CORR Insights®: Delayed Diagnosis Is the Primary Cause of Sarcoma Litigation: Analysis of Malpractice Claims in the United States.

Nonoperating room anaesthesia: safety, monitoring, cognitive aids and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Purpose of reviewWith an ageing population, mounting pressure on the healthcare dollar, significant advances in medical technology, and now in the context of coronavirus disease 2019, the traditional paradigm in which operative procedures are undertaken is changing. Increasingly, procedures are performed in more distant, isolated and less familiar locations, challenging anaesthesiologists and requiring well developed situational awareness. This review looks at implications for the practitioner and patient safety, outlining considerations and steps involved in translation of systems and processes well established in the operating room to more unfamiliar environments.Recent findingsDespite limited nonoperating room anaesthesia outcome data, analysis of malpractice claims, anaesthesia-related medical disputes and clinical outcome registries have suggested higher morbidity and mortality. Complications were often associated with suboptimal monitoring, nonadherence to recommended guidelines and sedationist or nonanaesthesiologist caregivers. More recently, clear monitoring guidelines, global patient safety initiatives and widespread implementation of cognitive aids may have contributed to nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) outcomes approaching that of traditional operating rooms.SummaryAs NORA caseloads increase, understanding structural and anaesthetic requirements is essential to patient safety. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has provided an opportunity for anaesthesiologists to implement lessons learned from previous analyses, share expertise as patient safety leaders and provide valuable input into protecting patients and caregivers.

Delayed Diagnosis Is the Primary Cause of Sarcoma Litigation: Analysis of Malpractice Claims in the United States.

Sarcoma care is highly litigated in medical malpractice claims. Understanding the reasons for litigation and legal outcomes in sarcoma care may help physicians deliver more effective and satisfying care to patients while limiting their legal exposure. However, few studies have described malpractice litigation in sarcoma care. (1) What percentage of sarcoma malpractice cases result in a defendant verdict? (2) What is the median indemnity payment for cases that result in a plaintiff verdict or settlement? (3) What are the most common reasons for litigation, injuries sustained, and medical specialties of the defendant physicians? (4) What are the factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments? The national medicolegal database Westlaw was queried for medical malpractice cases pertaining to sarcomas that reached verdicts or settlements. Cases from 1982 to 2018 in the United States were included in the study to evaluate for trends in sarcoma litigation. Demographic and clinical data, tumor characteristics, reasons for litigation, injuries, and legal outcomes were recorded for each case. A univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments, such as tumor characteristics, defendant's medical or surgical specialty, reason for litigation, and injuries sustained. A total of 92 cases related to sarcomas were included in the study, of which 40 were related to bone sarcomas and 52 were related to soft-tissue sarcomas. Eighty-five percent (78 of 92) of cases involved adult patients (mean age ± SD: 40 ± 15 years) while 15% (14 of 92) of cases involved pediatric patients (mean age ± SD: 12.5 ± 5 years). Thirty-eight percent (35 of 92) of the included cases resulted in a defendant verdict, 30% (28 of 92) resulted in a plaintiff verdict, and 32% (29 of 92) resulted in a settlement. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) indemnity payment for plaintiff verdicts and settlements was USD 1.9 million (USD 0.5 to USD 3.5 million). Median (IQR) indemnity payments were higher for cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict than for cases that resulted in a settlement (USD 3.3 million [1.1 to 5.7 million] versus USD 1.2 million [0.4 to 2.4 million]; difference of medians = USD 2.2 million; p = 0.008). The most common reason for litigation was delayed diagnosis of sarcoma (91%; 84 of 92) while the most common injuries cited were progression to metastatic disease (51%; 47 of 92) and wrongful death (41%; 38 of 92). Malpractice claims were most commonly filed against primary care physicians (26%; 28 of 109 defendants), nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons (23%; 25 of 109), and radiologists (15%; 16 of 109). Cases were more likely to result in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff or settlement if a delay in diagnosis occurred despite suspicious findings on imaging or pathologic findings (80% versus 51%; odds ratio 3.84 [95% CI 1.34 to 11.03]; p = 0.02). There were no differences in indemnity payments with the numbers available in terms of tumor type, tumor location, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, and resulting injuries. Many lawsuits were made against primary care physicians, nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons, or radiologists for a delayed diagnosis of sarcoma despite the presence of imaging or histologic findings suspicious for malignancy. Although previous studies of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas have not shown a consistent association between time to diagnosis and decreased survival, our study suggests that physicians are still likely to lose these lawsuits because of the perceived benefits of an early diagnosis. Physicians can mitigate their malpractice risk while reducing delays in diagnosis of sarcomas by carefully reviewing all existing diagnostic studies, establishing closed-loop communication protocols to communicate critical findings from diagnostic studies, and developing policies to facilitate second-opinion consultation, particularly for imaging studies, with an experienced sarcoma specialist. Musculoskeletal oncologists may be able to help further reduce the rates of malpractice litigation in sarcoma care by helping patients understand that delays in diagnosis do not necessarily constitute medical malpractice.

Analysis of patient injury based on anesthesiology closed claims data from a major malpractice insurer.

The analysis of malpractice claims can provide risk managers with a detailed view of patient mortality and morbidity. The data comes from many institutions, encompasses a diverse group of practitioners and practice settings, and contains detailed clinical information. Analysis can help identify patterns of injury, risk factors, and rare and sentinel events. We examined most recent anesthesia closed claims data collected by The Doctors Company, a large national malpractice insurer. We analyzed data from claims closed between 2007 and 2012. Each claim underwent a review by physician and nurse experts, and was then coded using the Comprehensive Risk Intelligence Tool. Injury distribution and association between the injury and patient comorbidity were also examined. A total of 607 claims were analyzed. Most frequent injuries were teeth damage (20.8%), death (18.3%), nerve damage (13.5%), organ damage (12.7%), pain (10.9%), and arrest (10.7%). Obesity was most frequently identified as a contributing factor leading to a claim. Injury-to-claim rates were highest in hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, while ambulatory surgery centers had the lowest death-to-claim rate (12%). Average indemnity for an anesthesia claim was $309 066, compared to $291 000 for all physician specialties. The most frequent claims were death and nerve damage when teeth damage was excluded. Obesity impacted anesthesia outcomes more frequently than did other comorbidities. Although there were fewer claims from the smaller hospitals, those claims had higher rates of mortality and nerve damage compared to larger-size hospitals. Further analysis is needed to evaluate these trends as well as impact of specific patient comorbidities on anesthesia outcomes.

Paid Malpractice Claims for Adverse Events in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings

Context An analysis of paid malpractice claims may provide insight into the prevalence and seriousness of adverse medical events in the outpatient setting. Objective To report and compare the number, magnitude, and type of paid malpractice claims for events in inpatient and outpatient settings. Design and Setting Retrospective analysis of malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians in outpatient and inpatient settings using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank from 2005 through 2009. We evaluated trends in claims paid by setting, characteristics of paid claims, and factors associated with payment amount. Main Outcome Measures Number of paid claims, mean and median payment amounts, types of errors, and outcomes of errors. Results In 2009, there were 10 739 malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians. Of these paid claims, 4910 (47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.6%-48.5%) were for events in the inpatient setting, 4448 (43.1%; 95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) were for events in the outpatient setting, and 966 (9.4%; 95% CI, 8.8%-9.9%) involved events in both settings. The proportion of payments for events in the outpatient setting increased by a small but statistically significant amount, from 41.7% (95% CI, 40.9%-42.6%) in 2005 to 43.1% (95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) in 2009 (P Conclusion In 2009, the number of paid malpractice claims reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank for events in the outpatient setting was similar to the number in the inpatient setting.

Analysis of malpractice claims in breast care for poor cosmetic outcome

Claims for poor cosmetic outcome account for a large proportion of breast care malpractice litigation in the UK. Detailed analysis of such claims has not been conducted. We sought to analyse National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA) data pertaining to breast care over the period September 2005–April 2008, focussing on claims for poor cosmetic outcome. Data from a medical indemnity organisation detailing similar claims in the private sector were also analysed. Comparison of the NHSLA data with previously obtained NHSLA data (May 1995–September 2005) demonstrated an upward trend in claims for poor cosmetic outcome. The majority of claimants for poor cosmesis had benign disease and the vast majority of claimants with breast malignancy had undergone breast reconstruction. The majority of claims for poor cosmetic outcome were against plastic surgeons. This was more marked in the private sector data than in the NHSLA data, reflecting their workload.

Analysis of malpractice claims in mammography: a complex issue

The aim of this study was to analyse malpractice claims in mammography, estimate the specific risk of future claims and assess their impact on radiologists and society. The study considered insurance claims filed by radiologists of the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) over a 12.5-year period between 1 January 1993 and 30 June 2005. We isolated claims related to presumed diagnostic errors in mammography. We then estimated the number of claims arising from events in the study period that are expected to be filed over the next few years, before the expiration of the prescriptive period of 10 years. The total number of claims was 1,088. Of these, 302 were caused by alleged diagnostic errors in cases of cancer; 189 (62%) concerned breast cancers and mammographic technique. Assuming a constant frequency of claims filed by radiologists, we expect a further 637 claims relating to the study period, for a total of 1,725 claims, with 178 claims being related to breast imaging. The predicted rate therefore increases to 10.5 per thousand, equal to a risk of one litigation per radiologist per 10 years of work. The analysis uncovered a complex problem: although radiologists save many lives through the radiographic diagnosis of breast cancer and consequently contribute to the welfare of society, in practice, they can face real or alleged errors, with serious judicial consequences. Awareness of professional risk in current society may represent a valuable reference for choosing and planning to work in radiology.