Defensive practices among non-medical health professionals: An overview of the scientific literature

Improving birth experiences and provider interactions: Expert opinion on critical links in Maternity care

This article explores the Quality of Provider Interaction (QPI) within maternity care, spotlighting its crucial role in positive childbirth experiences. It emphasizes the need for trust-based relationships between women and their care providers, a necessity amplified by the profound neurohormonal sensitivities experienced during labor. Drawing from the 'Optimizing the birth environment' COST DEVOTION CA18211 Working Group, this article aims to provide insights and stimulate discussion on how to mitigate birth trauma and improve childbirth experiences. The study evolved through discussions on QPI, engagement with the group, a review of COST Action research, and conference contributions, leading to essential recommendations. From our dialogue and evaluation of existing literature, we identified four pivotal aspects critical to enhancing QPI: 1) Empathy and emotional availability, 2) Trauma-informed maternity care, 3) Integrating woman-centered individual and institutional attitudes, and 4) Empowering language use. We examine how these elements influence women's emotional and psychological well-being throughout childbirth and beyond, underscoring their critical contribution. This article proposes a framework to improve maternity care by enhancing the Quality of Provider Interaction (QPI). It offers practical recommendations for refining care protocols and language guidelines, emphasizing the importance of respectful, secure birthing environments. Adopting care models that prioritize high-quality provider interactions is crucial for the well-being of women and their families.

Defensive healthcare practice: systematic review of qualitative evidence

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise qualitative evidence on clinicians' views and experiences of defensive practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review of qualitative data.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Proquest Dissertations & Theses and PROSPERO were searched from 2000 to October 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included English-language studies of clinicians which reported qualitative data on the impact of litigation or complaints on clinical practice.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We coded findings data line by line using a grounded theory approach. We assessed quality using Hawker et al's tool and synthesised data thematically.

RESULTS

17 studies were included. Participants identify a range of clinical decisions which may be defensively motivated, relating to diagnosis and documentation as well as to treatment. Defensive practice often relates to a diffuse sense of risk rather than the direct threat of litigation and may overlap with other motivations, such as perceived pressure from patients or the desire to avoid harm. Defensive practice is seen to be harmful in many ways, but again, these perceptions may gain force from broader narratives of mistrust and disempowerment, as much as from the risk of litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

The idea of defensive practice, as enacted, is more complex than some theoretical accounts suggest and may often function to express broader concerns about the work of clinical care. The qualitative evidence calls into question the view of defensive practice as a key mediator linking litigation risk to inappropriate treatment and excess costs.

The occurrence, types, reasons, and mitigation strategies of defensive medicine among physicians: a scoping review

Background

Defensive Medicine (DM) concept refers to all medical care provided by physicians without increasing the benefits to the patient, the primary purpose of which is to prevent the risk of litigation. Although several studies have been published investigating the occurrence of DM around the world, no review conducted on DM among physicians. Therefore, this study aims to summarize and map the available evidence on occurrence, types of behaviors, and reasons for practicing of DM among physicians and possible solutions and strategies to reduce DM in the literature.

Methods

This is a scoping review in which we searched Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed in December 2021. Our target was original studies of any type that included data on DM among physicians between 2000 and 2021. We followed the JBI guideline for conducting a scoping review and for increasing the rigor of the study. First, the percentage was used to summarize the occurrence of DM, and then, findings related to types of behaviors and reasons for practicing DM and mitigation strategies were analyzed inductively in NVivo 10 in three stages.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included in the review. The overall occurrence of DM practice ranged from 6.7 to 99.8%. Two types of DM behaviors including assurance and avoidance behaviors have been identified. The common reasons for practicing DM were categorized into four themes, patient-related reasons, physician-related reasons, organization-related reasons, and society-related reasons. The main strategies to prevent or reduce DM are structured training and education, restoring physician-patient relationships, reform of the health system, and reform of the liability system.

Conclusions

The vast majority of research studies were conducted in high-income countries, and studies are needed to measure this phenomenon and its consequences in depth in low- and middle-income countries. Various solutions and strategies are needed to reduce defensive behaviors such as structured training and education, restoring physician-patient relationships, reforming the health system, and reforming the liability system.

Keywords

Defensive medicine, Defensive practice, Medical malpractice, Physicians, Scoping review

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08194-w.

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.

Physicians' views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research

This study systematically maps empirical research on physicians' views and experiences of hedging-type defensive medicine, which involves providing services (eg, tests, referrals) to reduce perceived legal risks. Such practices drive over-treatment and low value healthcare. Data sources were empirical, English-language publications in health, legal and multi-disciplinary databases. The extraction framework covered: where and when the research was conducted; what methods of data collection were used; who the study participants were; and what were the study aims, main findings in relation to hedging-type defensive practices, and proposed solutions. 79 papers met inclusion criteria. Defensive medicine has mainly been studied in the United States and European countries using quantitative surveys. Surgery and obstetrics have been key fields of investigation. Hedging-type practices were commonly reported, including: ordering unnecessary tests, treatments and referrals; suggesting invasive procedures against professional judgment; ordering hospitalisation or delaying discharge; and excessive documentation in medical records. Defensive practice was often framed around the threat of negligence lawsuits, but studies recognised other legal risks, including patient complaints and regulatory investigations. Potential solutions to defensive medicine were identified at macro (law, policy), meso (organisation, profession) and micro (physician) levels. Areas for future research include qualitative studies to investigate the behavioural drivers of defensive medicine and intervention research to determine policies and practices that work to support clinicians in de-implementing defensive, low-value care.