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

Orthopedic Surgeons at Greater Risk of Malpractice Claims for Treatment of Primary Malignant Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Compared With Metastatic Bone Disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine cases of malpractice litigation in primary sarcoma and metastatic bone disease in orthopedic oncology, to identify the areas in which orthopedic surgeons may be guilty of negligence, and to make them aware of this.

METHODS

A comprehensive examination was conducted on all closed medical malpractice cases involving bone and soft tissue malignant tumors from 2014 to 2024. Patient demographics, histopathological diagnosis, and malpractice claims made in a variety of specialties were recorded. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study resulted in the inclusion of 70 cases of primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma and 36 cases of metastatic bone disease.

RESULTS

A total of 47 primary tumors were bone sarcoma and 23 were soft tissue sarcoma. A total of 11 patients with primary sarcoma were accepted for malpractice claims, representing 16% of all cases within this category. Nevertheless, no evidence of malpractice was identified among the patients with metastatic bone disease (p = 0.012). Orthopedists (44 of 85 defendants), pathologists (14 of 85 defendants), and radiologists (7 of 85 defendants) were the most common defendants in primary sarcoma malpractice cases. Surgeons other than orthopedists (21 of 49 defendants), medical oncologists (4 of 49 defendants), and radiation oncologists (4 of 49 defendants) were the most common defendants in metastatic bone disease malpractice cases.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of our cases suggests that malpractice claims are more likely filed against orthopedic surgeons for the treatment of primary malignant bone and soft tissue tumors than for metastatic bone disease.

Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)-Part 1: The role of common errors in radiology in missed breast cancer and implications of misdiagnosis

IMPORTANCE

Misdiagnosis in breast imaging can have significant implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system as a whole.

OBSERVATIONS

Some of the potential implications of misdiagnosis in breast imaging include delayed diagnosis or false reassurance, which can result in a delay in treatment and potentially a worse prognosis. Misdiagnosis can also lead to unnecessary procedures, which can cause physical discomfort, anxiety, and emotional distress for patients, as well as increased healthcare costs. All these events can erode patient trust in the healthcare system and in individual healthcare providers. This can have negative implications for patient compliance with screening and treatment recommendations, as well as overall health outcomes. Moreover, misdiagnosis can also result in legal consequences for healthcare providers, including medical malpractice lawsuits and disciplinary action by licensing boards.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

To minimize the risk of misdiagnosis in breast imaging, it is important for healthcare providers to use appropriate imaging techniques and interpret images accurately and consistently. This requires ongoing training and education for radiologists and other healthcare providers, as well as collaboration and communication among healthcare providers to ensure that patients receive appropriate and timely care. If a misdiagnosis does occur, it is important for healthcare providers to communicate with patients and provide appropriate follow-up care to minimize the potential implications of the misdiagnosis. This may include repeat imaging, additional biopsies or other procedures, and referral to specialists for further evaluation and management.

KEY POINTS

Question What factors most contribute to and what implications stem from misdiagnosis in breast imaging? Findings Ongoing training and education for radiologists and other healthcare providers, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration and communication, is paramount. Clinical relevance Misdiagnosis in breast imaging can have significant implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the entire healthcare system.

Assessing Sarcoma Awareness Among the General Population in Minnesota: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study from the Minnesota State Fair in 2015 and 2022

Sarcomas are commonly misdiagnosed, and treatment delays negatively impact patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to explore patient threshold for and timeline to medical evaluation, to identify providers most likely to be contacted first, and to assess general sarcoma knowledge in Minnesota's general population. Voluntary participants were recruited at the 2015 and 2022 Minnesota State Fair to complete a three-part survey. Part 1 assessed evaluation timeline and provider choice, part 2 evaluated sarcoma knowledge via a ten-question survey, and part 3 documented demographics. Responses were electronically recorded, and results were tabulated. Overall, 2124 participants completed some or all of the survey. Part 1: Participants indicated they would seek more urgent treatment for a painful mass compared to a non-painful mass (p < 0.001). The majority (77%) of participants indicated a family medicine physician would be their first contact for painful and non-painful masses. Part 2: There was no difference in overall score (percent correct) when comparing results from 2015 (mean = 40%) to 2022 (mean = 42%) (p = 0.183). Overall, 16% (349/2117) of participants had no correct responses. Individuals who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and a non-White race performed worse (p < 0.001). In general, scores improved with increased education and those with a graduate or professional degree had an estimated 2.515-point increase in score compared to participants with some high school education or high school diploma/general education diploma (p < 0.001). Participants with a healthcare background scored better (p < 0.001). Pain is a driving factor for patient-initiated evaluation, and primary care providers are the most likely first contact for patients. General sarcoma awareness remains low, even among those with advanced degrees and healthcare experience. Ongoing educational efforts are warranted for both the general public and healthcare communities in Minnesota.

Enhanced accuracy and reduced delay in diagnosing bone tumors within an expert sarcoma network: A nationwide study

INTRODUCTION

Primary bone tumors encompass a range of rare and diverse lesions. Pathological diagnosis poses significant challenges, with histological discrepancies extensively studied in soft tissue sarcomas but lacking specific investigation in bone lesions. This study aimed to determine the rate of major diagnostic discrepancies in primary bone tumors, assessing whether initial histological analysis within an expert referral center network reduces this rate and final diagnostic delay. Additionally, we examined the impact of mandatory systematic re-reading by expert pathologists on diagnostic variation and readjustment.

METHODS

Our study cohort comprised patients with primary bone tumors, drawn from the national prospective French sarcoma network database. A total of 1075 patients were included from 2018 to 2019.

RESULTS

The cohort exhibited a major discrepancy rate of 24%. Within the expert referral centers network, 49 cases (7%) showed major diagnostic discrepancies in the initial analysis, compared to 207 cases (57%) outside the network (p < 0.001). Regarding the final diagnostic delay, a mean of 2.8 weeks (±4.9) was observed within the network, contrasting with 6.5 weeks (±9.1) outside the network (p < 0.001). Systematic re-reading by an expert pathologist facilitated diagnosis readjustment in 75% of the 256 cases, with 68% of all diagnostic variations occurring preoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Early management within the expert network significantly reduced major diagnostic discrepancies and shortened the diagnosis delay by approximately a month. Expert pathologist systematic re-readings were responsible for diagnosis readjustments in three-quarters of cases, with two-thirds of all diagnostic variations occurring preoperatively, thereby mitigating the consequences of mistreatment.

Incidence and outcomes of delayed presentation and surgery in peritoneal surface malignancies

Background

Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) present insidiously and often pose diagnostic challenges. There is a paucity of literature quantifying the frequency and extent of therapeutic delays in PSM and its impact on oncological outcomes.

Methods

A review of a prospectively maintained registry of PSM patients undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intra-peritoneal Chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) was conducted. Causes for treatment delays were identified. We evaluate the impact of delayed presentation and treatment delays on oncological outcomes using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

319 patients underwent CRS-HIPEC over a 6-years duration. 58 patients were eventually included in this study. Mean duration between symptom onset and CRS-HIPEC was 186.0 ± 37.1 days (range 18-1494 days) and mean duration of between patient-reported symptom onset and initial presentation was 56.7 ± 16.8 days. Delayed presentation (> 60 days between symptom onset and presentation) was seen in 20.7% (n=12) of patients and 50.0% (n=29) experienced a significant treatment delay of > 90 days between 1^st presentation and CRS-HIPEC. Common causes for treatment delays were healthcare provider-related i.e. delayed or inappropriate referrals (43.1%) and delayed presentation to care (31.0%). Delayed presentation was a significantly associated with poorer disease free survival (DFS) (HR 4.67, 95% CI 1.11-19.69, p=0.036).

Conclusion

Delayed presentation and treatment delays are common and may have an impact on oncological outcomes. There is an urgent need to improve patient education and streamline healthcare delivery processes in the management of PSM.

Critical Review of Oncologic Medical Malpractice Claims Against Orthopaedic Surgeons

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to determine the most common allegations for malpractice litigation brought against orthopaedic surgeons for oncologic matters and the resulting verdicts.

METHODS

The Westlaw Legal research database was queried for malpractice cases filed against orthopaedic surgeons for oncologic matters in the United States after 1980. Plaintiff demographics, state of filing, allegations, and outcomes of lawsuits were recorded and reported accordingly.

RESULTS

A total of 36 cases met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were subsequently included in the final analysis. The overall rate of cases filed remained consistent through the past four decades and was primarily related to a primary sarcoma diagnosis in adult women. The primary reason for litigation was failure to diagnose a primary malignant sarcoma (42%) followed by failure to diagnose unrelated carcinoma (19%). The most common states of filing were primarily located in the Northeast (47%), where a plaintiff verdict was also more commonly encountered as compared with other regions. Damages awarded averaged $1,672,500 with a range of $134, 231 to $6,250,000 and a median of $918,750.

CONCLUSION

Failure to diagnose primary malignant sarcoma and unrelated carcinoma was the most common reason for oncologic litigation brought against orthopaedic surgeons. Although most of the cases ruled in favor of the defendant surgeon, it is important for orthopaedic surgeons to be aware of the potential errors that not only prevent litigation but also improve patient care.

Medical malpractice litigation after total shoulder arthroplasty: a comprehensive analysis based on the Westlaw legal database

INTRODUCTION

Orthopedic surgery is one of the most common subspecialties subject to medical malpractice claims. Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is associated with favorable patient outcomes and relatively low complication rates, surgeons performing this procedure may be subject to malpractice litigation leading to significant economic and psychological burden on the provider. The purpose of this study is to characterize and describe malpractice claims against orthopedic surgeons performing TSA using the Westlaw legal database.

METHODS

The Westlaw legal database was queried for all cases related to TSA using the terms "malpractice" AND "shoulder replacement" OR "shoulder arthroplasty." Cases were excluded if the defendant was not an orthopedic surgeon, the procedure involved was not a TSA, or if the patient was a minor. Patient demographics, causes cited for litigation, case outcomes, and indemnity payments were analyzed to determine common factors that lead plaintiffs to pursue legal action.

RESULTS

Thirty-five TSA cases were identified that met inclusion criteria. The mean plaintiff age was 55 years with 63.6% female. The most common category of negligence alleged was intraoperative error, which occurred in 25 claims (71%). The most common types of damages incurred were nerve injury (23%), functional limitation (20%), and infection (17%). Overall, 27 cases (77%) resulted in a defense verdict. Four cases (11%) resulted in settlements and 4 cases (11%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts. The average inflation-adjusted monetary award in these cases was $1,619,919 (standard deviation, $1,689,452).

DISCUSSION

This study provides a comprehensive summary of malpractice claims and associated outcomes in TSA. Given the rapidly increasing rate of TSA in the United States and the burden of associated malpractice claims, understanding potential legal implications of TSA is of great value to orthopedic surgeons. Intraoperative error was the category of negligence cited most commonly in TSA malpractice claims. Nerve injury, functional limitation, and infection were the most commonly cited specific damages. These findings highlight the need for orthopedic surgeons to educate patients regarding potential postoperative complications while continuing to focus on minimizing their occurrence.

A 9-year analysis of medical malpractice litigations in coronary artery bypass grafting in China

BACKGROUND

The coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is one of the high-risk litigated medical specialties. Further elucidating the causes behind these malpractice claims can help physicians avoid patient injury. This study analyzed CABG litigations occurred in different level hospitals to outline the basic characteristics, as well as present a analysis on the medical malpractice that result in lawsuits.

METHODS

This study utilized the "China Judgments Online" database to compile litigations from 2012 to 2021 across China. 109 cases related to the CABG were included in the study, and were analyzed for demographic, patient outcomes and verdict characteristics in different levels of hospitals.

RESULTS

The median age of plaintiff patient was 62 years, the median length of stay was 25 days, and the median responsibility ratio of the litigation cases was 30%. The average proportion of responsibility of national, provincial and municipal hospitals were 29.6%, 28.4% and 39.5% respectively, and the median days after surgery to death of that were 15, 9 and 5 separately. The top 5 postoperative complications in dispute cases were: low cardiac output syndrome, postoperative hemorrhage, non-surgical site infections, surgical site infections and arrhythmia.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis and treatment capabilities of coronary artery bypass grafting in different levels of hospitals in China were inconsistent, and the treatment capabilities in prefecture-level hospitals were lower than that in national hospitals. The procedural error, failure to properly monitor the patient and diagnostic errors were common in CABG litigations. Postoperative complications related to surgical injuries and insufficient basic postoperative management lead to a higher responsibility proportion.

Review of the referral documents of patients with malignant soft tissue tumors

Fifteen years have passed since the soft tissue tumor practice guidelines were first published in Japan. Tumor size of ≥ 5 cm and tumor depth were key findings suggestive of malignant soft tissue tumors. We reviewed the referral documents provided by the referring physicians to see if these two findings were reported. The study was conducted from January 2007 to December 2021 and included 142 patients (83 men and 59 women; median age, 64 [6-94] years) with malignant soft tissue tumors. Patient referral documents from physicians were screened for descriptions of the tumor size and depth. The tumor size, depth, and both were described in 51.4%, 36.6%, and 23.2% of the referrals, respectively. Both findings were mentioned in 23.8%, 21.7%, and 25.0% of referrals in 2007-2011, 2012-2016, and 2017-2021, respectively. Of orthopedic surgeons and other physicians, 61.2% and 38.6%, respectively, described the tumor size. Whether the general physicians could follow the soft tissue tumor practice guidelines was difficult to conclude by reviewing patient referral documents. However, orthopedic surgeons seemed to pay more attention to tumor size. Awareness regarding soft tissue tumor practice guidelines should be increased to help diagnose malignant soft tissue tumors early.

Patients with an increased time to treatment initiation have a poorer overall survival after definitive surgery for localized high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma in the extremity or trunk : report from the National Cancer Database

AIMS

Time to treatment initiation (TTI) is generally defined as the time from the histological diagnosis of malignancy to the initiation of first definitive treatment. There is no consensus on the impact of TTI on the overall survival in patients with a soft-tissue sarcoma. The purpose of this study was to determine if an increased TTI is associated with overall survival in patients with a soft-tissue sarcoma, and to identify the factors associated with a prolonged TTI.

METHODS

We identified 23,786 patients from the National Cancer Database who had undergone definitive surgery between 2004 and 2015 for a localized high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs or trunk. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the relationship between a number of factors and overall survival. We calculated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) using negative binomial regression models to identify the factors that affected TTI.

RESULTS

Patients in whom the time to treatment initiation was prolonged had poorer overall survival than those with a TTI of 0 to 30 days. These were: 31 to 60 days (hazard ratio (HR) 1.08, p = 0.011); 61 to 90 days (HR 1.11, p = 0.044); and 91 days (HR 1.22; p = 0.003). The restricted cubic spline showed that the hazard ratio increased substantially with a TTI longer than 50 days. Non-academic centres (vs academic centres; IRR ranging from 0.64 to 0.86; p < 0.001) had a shorter TTI. Those insured by Medicaid (vs private insurance; IRR 1.34), were uninsured (vs private insurance; IRR 1.17), or underwent a transition in care (IRR 1.62) had a longer TTI.

CONCLUSION

A time to treatment initiation of more than 30 days after diagnosis was independently associated with poorer survival. The hazard ratio showed linear increase, especially if the TTI was more than 50 days. We recommend starting treatment within 30 days of diagnosis to achieve the highest likelihood of cure for localized high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas in the limbs and trunk, even when a patient needs to be referred to a specialist centre. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1142-1149.

Analysis of in court malpractice litigation following pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic operations are technically complex with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Analysis of litigation following surgery can disclose avoidable errors.

METHODS

Two legal databases, Westlaw and Lexis Nexis, were queried for jury verdicts, settlements and appeal cases in the United States related to pancreatic surgery and malpractice between 1980 and 2020.

RESULTS

Thirty-four cases were analyzed. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 22, 65%) was the most common procedure litigated. Claims most commonly involved malpractice in the postoperative (n = 16) setting. The most common claims were failure to diagnose or treat postoperative complications (n = 16), lack of informed consent (n = 9), and wrongful indication for surgery (n = 8). Seven cases involved incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Attending surgeons were the main provider named in the medical malpractice claim in 25 (74%) of the cases. Resident surgeons were named in 5 cases (15%). Half of the cases (n = 17) involved patient deaths. The court ruled in favor of the defendant in 75% of the cases, and the plaintiff in 12.5%. Median payout for settlements and plaintiff verdicts was 783,304 USD (interquartile range (IQR) 1,034,046). Mean time from incident to final disposition was 6.4 years (±3.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Obtaining an accurate preoperative diagnosis may decrease malpractice litigation following pancreatic surgery. By raising awareness to unsafe practices and identifying vulnerable periods of care, these data may serve to enhance provider performance as well as improve patient safety.