Medical malpractice liability and its consequences

Informed consent in urology

Appropriate professional practice includes the diagnostic and treatment process of urologic pathology, as well as patient information and respect for patient autonomy in decision making. Informed consent is the gradual process of providing information to the patient and their subsequent decision making. The informed consent document (ICD), when required, demonstrates that information has been provided sufficiently in advance to allow for the patient's deliberation. The dual need for simple yet complete documents make the preparation of adequate ICDs extremely difficult. If the information process is not carried out properly, the professional may incur a medical malpractice liability that is treated as a loss of opportunity. To avoid such situations, the work of scientific societies in the preparation, accessibility, and dissemination of ICD models is fundamental.

Vox clamantis in deserto: a survey among Italian psychiatrists on defensive medicine and professional liability

Due to recent events, professional liability for psychiatrists in Italy is currently a matter of lively debate. Specifically, overwhelming pressure on psychiatrists' duties has been brought by regulatory developments, such as the closure of forensic psychiatric hospitals, with the consequent return of offenders to community-based care, and the mental health consequences of the pandemic. According to Italian courts, psychiatrists are not only responsible for diagnostic and therapeutic appropriateness but also for the effects of their interventions on patients, and their behaviors. The aim of this study was to explore the attitude and behaviors of Italian psychiatrists regarding defensive medicine and professional liability. A total sample of 254 psychiatrists was surveyed by means of a quantitative online questionnaire. Most psychiatrists reported practicing defensive medicine (no. 153/254, 60.2%) and felt that their position of guarantee compromised their work in healthcare for patients (no. 138/253, 54.3%). Age correlated inversely with acknowledgment of defensive practices (r = -0.245, p < 0.001), with younger physicians more prone to defensive medicine (p = 0.013), particularly for patients at risk of suicide or violence. Psychiatrists in 'closed' settings (hospital wards, residential and rehabilitation centers, mental health service units in prison) reported more malpractice claims (p = 0.037) and complaints (p = 0.031), as well as a greater propensity to act defensively. In the treatment of patients with violent behavior, suicidal ideation, dual diagnoses, and criminal convictions, defensive practices were associated more with perceived legal risks (r = 0.306, p < 0.001) than actual legal involvement (p > 0.05). Anxiety, anger, and restlessness were common reactions to legal complaints, involving no. 50/254 (19.7%) respondents, with 40% reporting impaired functioning. Most psychiatrists (no. 175/253, 68.9%) were concerned about both civil and criminal laws regarding their professional responsibility, but many were not fully informed about recent legislative regulations and younger physicians resulted scarcely trained in risk management (p < 0.001). In conclusion, our findings suggest that defensive medicine is a common phenomenon among psychiatrists and their position of guarantee drives this attitude. Education on legal implications and risk management should be provided starting from the university and continuing over time, to improve the knowledge of young and senior doctors on professional liability and inform their decision-making processes. This would also reduce defensive practices and improve the quality of healthcare. Considering the concerns of younger physicians, as well as of professionals working in acute and high-intensity medical care facilities, there is also an urgent need for a revision of the medical liability to ensure the sustainability of the National Health Service.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Medical Liability: An International Perspective in 18 Countries

The COVID-19 vaccination has proven to be the most effective prevention measure, reducing deaths and hospitalizations and allowing, in combination with non-pharmacological interventions, the pandemic to be tackled. Although most of the adverse reactions to vaccination present mild symptoms and serious effects are very rare, they can be the cause of legal action against the healthcare workers (HCWs) who administered it. To highlight differences in the medical liability systems, we performed a search for the three most populous countries in each continent on vaccine injury compensation programs, new laws or policies to protect HCWs administering vaccinations introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and policies on mandatory vaccinations, on literature databases and institutional sites. We found that in seven countries the medical liability system is based on Common Law, while in eleven it is mainly based on Civil Law. Considering the application of specific laws to protect HCWs who vaccinate during the pandemic, only the USA and Canada provided immunity from liability. Among the countries we analyzed, fourteen have adopted compensation funds. From an international perspective, our results highlight that in eleven (61.1%) countries medical liability is mainly based on Civil Law, whilst in seven (38.9%) it is based on Common Law.

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.