Medico-Legal Cases Involving Cardiologists and Cardiac Test Underuse or Overuse

Lessons learned from examination of Canadian medico-legal cases related to interventional therapies for chronic pain management

PURPOSE

Chronic pain is a common condition affecting almost one in five Canadians. One of the methods used to treat chronic pain is injection therapies. While they are considered relatively safe procedures, they do carry inherent risk that can result in adverse events. Our goal was to investigate these patient safety events to identify themes that could be used to shape practice guidelines and standards and improve patient safety.

METHODS

We looked at closed civil legal actions and regulatory college complaints associated with injection therapies for chronic pain in the Canadian Medical Protection Association database from 2015 to 2019. Injury was defined as that arising from, or associated with, plans or actions taken during the provision of health care, rather than an underlying disease or injury.

RESULTS

Of the 91 cases identified, the most common reported complications were neurologic-related symptoms, injury, and infection. Fifty-eight percent (53/91) of patients experienced health care-related harm that had a negative effect on their health or quality of life. Peer experts were critical of the clinical care provided in 74% (67/91) of the cases. Provider-related (60%, 40/67), team-related (75%, 50/67), and system-related factors (21%, 14/67) were identified as contributing factors in these cases. Common examples of provider-related factors were deficiencies in clinical decision-making (48%, 19/40), failure to follow established procedures (43%, 17/40), and situational awareness (38%, 15/40). Common examples of team-related factors were deficiencies in medical record keeping (80%, 40/50) and communication breakdowns (56%, 28/50). All system-related factors were related to inadequate office procedures.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that clinicians conduct appropriate physical examinations, keep up-to-date with clinical standards, and ensure their documentation reflects their assessment, the patient's condition, and the treatment rationale.

Medico-legal risk and use of medical directives in the emergency department

PURPOSE

The medico-legal risk associated with application of medical directives in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe and analyze factors associated with medico-legal risk in cases involving medical directives in the ED.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive analysis of closed medico-legal cases [hospital complaints, regulatory authority (i.e., College) complaints, and civil legal actions] involving emergency physicians in Canadian EDs involving medical directives (alternate terms including "standing order", "nursing initiated", "nurse initiated", "nursing order", "triage initiated", "triage ordered", "directive", "ED protocol", and "ED's protocol"). We used data from closed cases involving the Canadian Medical Protective Association from January 2016 until December 2021. We abstracted descriptive factors of the cases and used a framework for contributing factors classification.

RESULTS

From 2016 until 2021, 43,332 cases were closed and 1957 involved emergency physicians for which there was medico-legal information available for analysis. In all, 28 involved emergency physicians and medical directives. Situational awareness, team communication, and issues with clinical decision-making were the most important factors contributing to harm and medico-legal risk. Peer experts were critical of physicians not reviewing all results available for patients when initiated through a directive, misinterpreting test results, a less than thorough initial assessment, and of failing to reassess patients or re-order investigations when indicated.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the medico-legal risk exposure from the use of medical directives in the ED is low. Emergency departments may consider implementing systems to support adherence to medical directive policies, ensure physicians are alerted when medical directives are completed in a timely fashion, and leverage tools to notify the healthcare team when results have not been reviewed.

Causes and Outcomes of Medicolegal Proceedings Following Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Canada

Background and Aims

Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed in Canada but can be associated with potential complications and medicolegal implications. This study aimed to identify potential medicolegal cases in Canada relating to upper and lower endoscopies as well as advanced endoscopic procedures.

Methods

Westlaw Canada was searched for any cases regarding upper and lower endoscopies and advanced endoscopic procedures from inception to December 31, 2020. Cases were classified by type of case, procedure performed, patient and defendant demographics, outcome, and alleged reason for litigation/complaint.

Results

Twenty-nine civil cases and 9 board and tribunal decisions for upper and lower endoscopies and 3 advanced endoscopic procedure cases were analyzed. The most frequent defendant specialties were family physician, general surgery, and gastroenterology. The plaintiff was successful in 12 cases involving upper or lower endoscopy with an average award of $243,934 (2021 CDN). The most alleged reasons for litigation were procedural error or negligence (n = 19). The plaintiff was successful in 1 advanced endoscopic procedure case with an award of $153,032.

Conclusion

Medicolegal cases regarding gastrointestinal endoscopy in Canada occur infrequently. Endoscopy should be performed by skilled providers with appropriate informed consent from the patient, and careful consideration of whether procedures are indicated are key for endoscopic providers.

A qualitative interview study of Australian physicians on defensive practice and low value care: "it's easier to talk about our fear of lawyers than to talk about our fear of looking bad in front of each other"

Background

Defensive practice occurs when physicians provide services, such as tests, treatments and referrals, mainly to reduce their perceived legal or reputational risks, rather than to advance patient care. This behaviour is counter to physicians’ ethical responsibilities, yet is widely reported in surveys of doctors in various countries. There is a lack of qualitative research on the drivers of defensive practice, which is needed to inform strategies to prevent this ethically problematic behaviour.

Methods

A qualitative interview study investigated the views and experiences of physicians in Australia on defensive practice and its contribution to low value care. Interviewees were recruited based on interest in medico-legal issues or experience in a health service involved in ‘Choosing Wisely’ initiatives. Semi-structured interviews averaged 60 min in length. Data were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework, which encapsulates theories of behaviour and behaviour change.

Results

All participants (n = 17) perceived defensive practice as a problem and a contributor to low value care. Behavioural drivers of defensive practice spanned seven domains in the TDF: knowledge, focused on inadequate knowledge of the law and the risks of low value care; skills, emphasising patient communication and clinical decision-making skills; professional role and identity, particularly clinicians’ perception of patient expectations and concern for their professional reputation; beliefs about consequences, especially perceptions of the beneficial and harmful consequences of defensive practice; environmental context and resources, including processes for handling patient complaints; social influences, focused on group norms that encourage or discourage defensive behaviour; and emotions, especially fear of missing a diagnosis. Overall, defensive practice is motivated by physicians’ desire to avoid criticism or scrutiny from a range of sources, and censure from their professional peers can be a more potent driver than perceived legal consequences.

Conclusions

The findings call for strengthening knowledge and skills, for example, to improve clinicians’ understanding of the law and their awareness of the risks of low value care and using effective communication strategies with patients. Importantly, supportive cultures of practice and organisational environments are needed to create conditions in which clinicians feel confident in avoiding defensive practice and other forms of low value care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00755-2.

Views of healthcare consumer representatives on defensive practice: 'We are your biggest advocate and supporter… not the enemy'

Background

The patient–clinician interaction is a site at which defensive practice could occur, when clinicians provide tests, procedures and treatments mainly to reduce perceived legal risks, rather than to advance patient care. Defensive practice is a driver of low‐value care and exposes patients to the risks of unnecessary interventions. To date, patient perspectives on defensive practice and its impacts on them are largely missing from the literature. This exploratory study conducted in Australia aimed to examine the views and experiences of healthcare consumer representatives in this under‐examined area.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with healthcare consumer representatives involved in healthcare consumer advocacy organisations in Australia. Data were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

Nine healthcare consumer representatives participated. Most had over 20 years of involvement and advocacy in healthcare, including personal experiences as a patient or carer and/or formal service roles on committees or complaint bodies for healthcare organisations. Participants uniformly viewed defensive practice as having a negative impact on the clinician–patient relationship. Themes identified the importance of fostering patient–clinician partnership, effective communication and informed decision‐making. The themes support a shift from the concept of defensive practice to preventive practice in partnership, which focuses on the shared interests of patients and clinicians in achieving safe and high‐value care.

Conclusion

This Australian study offers healthcare consumers' perspectives on the impacts of defensive practice on patients. The findings highlight the features of clinician–patient partnership that will help to improve communication and decision‐making, and prevent the defensive provision of low‐value care.

Patient or Public Contribution

Healthcare consumer representatives were involved as participants in this study.