Defensive medicine in Europe: a 'full circle'?

Characteristics and trends of medical malpractice claims in Japan between 2006 and 2021

Classification and analysis of existing data on medical malpractice lawsuits are useful in identifying the root causes of medical errors and considering measures to prevent recurrence. No study has shown the actual prevalence of all closed malpractice claims in Japan, including the number of cases and their trial results. In this study, we illustrated the recent trends of closed malpractice claims by medical specialty, the effects of the acceptance rates and the settlements and clarified the trends and characteristics. This was a descriptive study of all closed malpractice claims data from the Supreme Court in Japan from 2006-2021. Trends and the characteristics in closed malpractice claims by medical specialty and the outcomes of the claims, including settlements and judgments, were extracted. The total number of closed medical malpractice claims was 13,340 in 16 years, with a high percentage ending in settlement (7,062, 52.9%), and when concluding in judgment (4,734, 35.3%), the medical profession (3,589, 75.8%) was favored. When compared by medical specialty, plastic surgery and obstetrics/gynecology were more likely resolved by settlement. By contrast, psychiatry cases exhibited a lower likelihood of settlement, and the percentage of cases resulting in unfavorable outcomes for patients was notably high. Furthermore, there has been a decline in the number of closed medical malpractice claims in Japan in recent years compared to the figures observed in 2006. In particular, the number of closed medical malpractice claims in obstetrics/gynecology and the number of closed medical malpractice claims per 1,000 physicians decreased significantly compared to other specialties. In conclusion, half of the closed malpractice claims were settled, and a low percentage of patients won their cases. Closed medical malpractice claims in Japan have declined in most medical specialties since 2006. Additionally, obstetrics/gynecology revealed a significant decrease since introducing the Obstetrics/Gynecology Medical Compensation System in 2009.

Collateral Victims of Defensive Medical Practice

This paper analyzes the phenomenon of defensive medical practice, starting from the doctor–patient relationship, and the behavioral and professional factors that can influence the proper functioning of this relationship and the healthcare system. We analyze medical malpractice, given the increase in the number of accusations, as an essential factor in triggering the defensive behavior of doctors, together with other complementary factors that emphasize the need for protection and safety of doctors. The possible consequences for the doctor–patient relationship that defensive practice can generate are presented and identified by analyzing the determining role of the type of health system (fault and no-fault). At the same time, we investigate the context in which overspecialization of medical personnel can generate a form of defensive practice as a result of the limiting effect on the performance of a certain category of operations and procedures. The increase in the number of malpractice accusations impacts the medical community—“the stress syndrome induced by medical malpractice”—turning doctors into collateral victims who, under the pressure of diminishing their reputational safety, practice defensively to protect themselves from future accusations. This type of defensive behavior puts pressure on the entire healthcare system by continuously increasing costs and unresolved cases, which impact patients by limiting access to medical services in the public and private sectors.

Trends and Developments in Medical Liability Claims in The Netherlands

Recent data on number of claims, final judgement of claims and their costs are scarce. This study analyzes 15 years of malpractice claims in the Netherlands. All claims filed, and all claims closed by two insurance companies (which insure approximately 95% of all hospitals in the Netherlands) between 2007–2021 are included. Trends in number of claims, medical specialties involved, final judgements and costs from malpractice claims are analyzed, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on malpractice claims. In total, 20,726 claims were filed and 21,826 claims were closed. Since 2013, the number of claims filed decreased. Of all claims filed, 64% were aimed at surgical specialties and 18% at contemplative specialties. Of all claims closed, 24.49% were accepted, 19.26% were settled and 48.94% got rejected. The financial burden of all claims closed quadrupled between 2007 and 2021; this increase was caused by rare cases with excessively high costs. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in the number of claims filed, and the number of incidents reported. This study provides valuable insights into trends and developments in the number and costs of liability claims, which is the first step towards improving patient safety and preventing incidents and malpractice claims.

How defensive medicine is defined in European medical literature: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Defensive medicine has originally been defined as motivated by fear of malpractice litigation. However, the term is frequently used in Europe where most countries have a no-fault malpractice system. The objectives of this systematic review were to explore the definition of the term 'defensive medicine' in European original medical literature and to identify the motives stated therein.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, 3 February 2020, with an updated search on 6 March 2021.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, we reviewed all European original peer-reviewed studies fully or partially investigating 'defensive medicine'.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 50 studies. First, we divided these into two categories: the first category consisting of studies defining defensive medicine by using a narrow definition and the second category comprising studies in which defensive medicine was defined using a broad definition. In 23 of the studies(46%), defensive medicine was defined narrowly as: health professionals' deviation from sound medical practice motivated by a wish to reduce exposure to malpractice litigation. In 27 studies (54%), a broad definition was applied adding … or other self-protective motives. These self-protective motives, different from fear of malpractice litigation, were grouped into four categories: fear of patient dissatisfaction, fear of overlooking a severe diagnosis, fear of negative publicity and unconscious defensive medicine. Studies applying the narrow and broad definitions of defensive medicine did not differ regarding publication year, country, medical specialty, research quality or number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

In European research, the narrow definition of defensive medicine as exclusively motivated by fear of litigation is often broadened to include other self-protective motives. In order to compare results pertaining to defensive medicine across countries, future studies are recommended to specify whether they are using the narrow or broad definition of defensive medicine.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020167215.

Is the perceived impact of disciplinary procedures on medical doctors' professional practice associated with working in an open culture and feeling supported? A questionnaire among medical doctors in the Netherlands who have been disciplined

INTRODUCTION

Disciplinary procedures can have a negative impact on the professional functioning of medical doctors. In this questionnaire study, doctors' experience with open culture and support during a disciplinary procedure is studied to determine whether open culture and support are associated with perceived changes in the professional practice of doctors.

METHODS

All doctors who received a warning or a reprimand from the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Board between July 2012 and August 2016 were invited to fill in a 60-item questionnaire concerning open culture, perceived support during the disciplinary procedure and the impact of the procedure on professional functioning as reported by doctors themselves. The response rate was 43% (n=294).

RESULTS

A majority of doctors perceive their work environment as a safe environment in which to talk about and report incidents (71.2% agreed). Respondents felt supported by a lawyer or legal representative and colleagues (92.8% and 89.2%, respectively). The disciplinary procedure had effects on professional practice. Legal support and support from a professional confidant and a professional association were associated with fewer perceived changes to professional practice.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that doctors who had been disciplined perceive their working environment as open. Doctors felt supported by lawyers and/or legal representatives and colleagues. Legal support was associated with less of a perceived impact on doctors' professional practice.