The Impact of Malpractice Claims on Physicians' Well-Being and Practice

Surgical specialists face higher a risk for malpractice compared to their non-surgical colleagues

In previous studies, surgical specialties accounted for most malpractice claims. The objective of the present study was to determine the risk for malpractice claims for physicians working in hospitals. A retrospective observational study using anonymized closed malpractice claims between 2007 up to 2021 from two Dutch insurers was carried out. Main outcomes involved claim volume & outcome, and the estimated annual risk (EAR) for a claim per year for the individual physician from all specialties. Sustained or settled claims were considered unfavorable for the physician (UOP). Surgical specialists, involving surgical specialties and specialties with surgical characteristics accounted for 77% (14,330/18,649) of the claims closed. Liability was denied in 51% of the claims (n = 9,487). The remaining claims were sustained (granted) (n = 4,600; 25%), settled (n = 3,444; 18%) or closed without decision (n = 1118; 6%). Surgeons faced an average EAR of 21.6% (range 6.5 - 28%) which was higher compared to colleagues from specialties with surgical characteristics (EAR 7.3%; range 2.9 - 10.1%) and non-surgical specialties (EAR 2.5%; range 0.9 - 4.4%). Surgical specialists received more claims than their non-surgical colleagues. Relative to specialty size, surgeons faced a higher risk for a claim in general, as well as for a claim with an unfavorable outcome.

Medical malpractice and epidural hematomas: a retrospective analysis of 101 cases in the United States

Background

Neurosurgeons face particularly high rates of litigation compared to physicians in other fields. Malpractice claims are commonly seen after mismanagement of life-threatening medical emergencies, such as epidural haematomas. Due to the lack of legal analysis pertaining to this condition, the aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with litigation in cases relating to the diagnosis and treatment of epidural haematomas.

Materials and methods

Westlaw Edge, an online database, was used to analyze malpractice cases related to epidural haematomas between 1986 and 2022. Information regarding plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, trial outcomes, and payouts for verdicts and settlements were recorded. Comparative analysis between cases that returned a jury verdict in favour of the plaintiff versus defendant was completed.

Results

A total of 101 cases were included in the analysis. Failure to diagnose was the most common reason for litigation (n = 64, 63.4%), followed by negligent care resulting in an epidural haematoma (n = 44, 43.6%). Spine surgery (n = 29, 28.7%), trauma (n = 28, 27.7%), and epidural injection/catheter/electrode placement (n = 21, 20.8%) were the primary causes of haematomas. Neurosurgeons (n = 18, 17.8%) and anesthesiologists (n = 17, 16.8%) were the two most common physician specialties cited as defendants. Most cases resulted in a jury verdict in favour of the defense (n = 54, 53.5%). For cases ending in plaintiff verdicts, the average payout was $3 621 590.45, while the average payment for settlements was $2 432 272.73.

Conclusion

Failure to diagnose epidural haematomas is the most common reason for malpractice litigation, with neurosurgeons and anesthesiologists being the most common physician specialties to be named as defendants. More than half of all cases returned a jury verdict in favour of the defense and, on average, settlements proved to be more cost-effective than plaintiff verdicts.

Prevalence and determinants of defensive medicine among physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Defensive medicine, characterized by physicians' inclination toward excessive diagnostic tests and procedures, has emerged as a significant concern in modern healthcare due to its high prevalence and detrimental effects. Despite the growing concerns among healthcare providers, policymakers, and physicians, comprehensive synthesis of the literature on the prevalence and determinants of defensive medicine among physicians has yet been reported. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify eligible studies published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2022, utilizing six databases (i.e. Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library). A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the prevalence and determinants of defensive medicine. Of the 8892 identified articles, 64 eligible studies involving 35.9 thousand physicians across 23 countries were included. The overall pooled prevalence of defense medications was 75.8%. Physicians engaged in both assurance and avoidance behaviors, with the most prevalent subitems being increasing follow-up and avoidance of high-complication treatment protocols. The prevalence of defensive medicine was higher in the African region [88.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 80.4%-95.8%] and lower-middle-income countries (89.0%; 95% CI: 78.2%-99.8%). Among the medical specialties, anesthesiologists (92.2%; 95% CI: 89.2%-95.3%) exhibited the highest prevalence. Further, the pooled odds ratios (ORs) of the nine factors at the individual, relational, and organizational levels were calculated, and the influence of previous experience in medical-legal litigation (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.13-2.18) should be considered. The results of this study indicate a high global prevalence of defensive medicine among physicians, underscoring the necessity of implementing targeted interventions to reduce its use, especially in certain regions and specialties. Policymakers should implement measures to improve physicians' medical skills, enhance physician-patient communication, address physicians' medical-legal litigation fears, and reform the medical liability system. Future research should focus on devising and assessing interventions to reduce the use of defensive medicine and to improve the quality of patient care.

Expert Advice for the Expert Witness

The malpractice system in the United States provides civil remedies-payment-for patients injured by non-standard-of-care medical practice. Anesthesiologists are not sued often, but one can still expect to be named in a suit at least once in their career. Although many prefer not to be involved in malpractice cases, there is a critical role for anesthesiologist expert witnesses to educate and inform the court regarding the appropriate standard of anesthesia care, and the contribution, if any, of anesthesia clinicians to specific adverse outcomes. This article describes the basic features of malpractice litigation, offering advice for anesthesiologist expert witnesses.

Patient and Family Mistreatment of Residents in the Surgical Learning Environment

OBJECTIVE

Identify the frequency and types of mistreatment experienced by residents from patients and their families (P&F) and determine whether the types and frequency varied based on resident gender.

DESIGN

An anonymous survey was distributed to residents to assess the types of P&F mistreatment toward residents and the association with resident gender.

SETTING

The survey was distributed to the general surgery and urology programs at a large academic medical center in the mid-Atlantic. Participants: 23 of 53 residents (43% response rate) participated in the anonymous survey. Residents: 15 male residents (65%), 8 female residents (35%). Results: 12 of 23 responding residents (52%) indicated they experienced at least one form of mistreatment from P&F. Women were more likely to experience mistreatment (88% vs. 33%), with verbal assault was the most frequent (50% for female residents, 33% for male residents). Patients were more often the source than families (52% vs. 41%); verbal assault or threats of physical harm were the most common (50% for female residents, 33% for male residents).

CONCLUSIONS

Residents experience mistreatment from multiple sources. This paper provides insight into the experiences of surgical residents with mistreatment from their P&F, with differences in frequency of behaviors dependent upon the perpetrator group and resident gender. Patients and their family mistreatments are likely underreported and may be more difficult to prevent. It is important to identify mitigation strategies and ensure resources are available for those residents experiencing mistreatment. A strong culture against mistreatment and providing specific resources may minimize the experience and negative effects of mistreatment.

Vocational and psychosocial predictors of medical negligence claims among Australian doctors: a prospective cohort analysis of the MABEL survey

OBJECTIVE

To understand the association between medical negligence claims and doctors' sex, age, specialty, working hours, work location, personality, social supports, family circumstances, self-rated health, self-rated life satisfaction and presence of recent injury or illness.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective cohort study of Australian doctors.

PARTICIPANTS

12 134 doctors who completed the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life survey between 2013 and 2019.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Doctors named as a defendant in a medical negligence claim in the preceding 12 months.

RESULTS

649 (5.35%) doctors reported being named in a medical negligence claim during the study period. In addition to previously identified demographic factors (sex, age and specialty), we identified the following vocational and psychosocial risk factors for claims: working full time (OR=1.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.94) or overtime hours (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.23), working in a regional centre (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.08), increasing job demands (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30), low self-rated life satisfaction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.91) and recent serious personal injury or illness (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72). Having an agreeable personality was mildly protective (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00). When stratified according to sex, we found that working in a regional area, low self-rated life satisfaction and not achieving work-life balance predicted medical negligence claims in male, but not female, doctors. However, working more than part-time hours and having a recent personal injury or illness predicted medical negligence claims in female, but not male, doctors. Increasing age predicted claims more strongly in male doctors. Personality type predicted claims in both male and female doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

Modifiable risk factors contribute to an increased risk of medical negligence claims among doctors in Australia. Creating more supportive work environments and targeting interventions that improve doctors' health and well-being could reduce the risk of medical negligence claims and contribute to improved patient safety.

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.

Medical Liability: Review of a Whole Year of Judgments of the Civil Court of Rome

Background: Complaints about medical malpractice have increased over time in Italy, as well as other countries around the world. This scenario, perceived by some as a “malpractice crisis”, is a subject of debate in health law and medical law. The costs arising from medical liability lawsuits weigh not only on individual professionals but also on the budgets of healthcare facilities, many of which in Italy are supported by public funds. A full understanding of the phenomenon of medical malpractice appears necessary in order to manage this spreading issue and possibly to reduce the health liability costs. Methods: The retrospective review concerned all the judgments drawn up by the Judges of the Civil Court of Rome, XIII Chamber (competent and specialized section for professional liability trials) published between January 2018 and February 2019. Results: The analysis of data concerning the involved parties showed that in 84.6% of the judgments taken into account, one or more health facilities were sued, while in 58.2% of cases, one or more health workers were present among the defendants. When healthcare providers are the only ones to be summoned, it is dentists and aesthetic doctors/plastic surgeons who undergo most of the claims. In the overall period analyzed, the amount paid was 23,489,254.08 EUR with an average of 163,119.82 EUR. Conclusion: The evidence provided by the reported data is a useful tool to understand medical malpractice in Italy, especially with regard to the occurrence of the phenomenon at a legal level, an aspect still hardly mentioned by existing literature.