Determinants of brain tumor malpractice litigation outcome and indemnity payments: a 29-year nationwide analysis

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.

Medical Malpractice in Neurosurgery: An Analysis of Claims in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Studying malpractice claims is important to improve quality of health care and patient safety and to educate the individual healthcare providers. The objective of this study was to describe characteristics of neurosurgical claims in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A nationwide retrospective observational study of neurosurgery-related claims closed by Centramed and MediRisk, 2 major insurance companies in the Netherlands, was performed. Relevant data, including type of neurosurgical pathology, theme and category of the claim, type and severity of injury, outcome, and financial burden, were extracted from anonymized claim files. The estimated annual risk was used to determine the risk for claims by adjusting for the number of annually practicing neurosurgeons in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

A total of 388 claims against neurosurgeons were closed between 2007 and 2021. Liability was denied in a slight majority of claims (n = 230; 59%). The total burden during this period was €6 165 000 (amount paid out to patients: €5 497 000). The estimated annual risk per Dutch neurosurgeon for a claim was 15.5%, meaning 1 claim per 6.5 years. The case-level analysis of 238 available anonymized claims revealed that most claims were related to spinal pathology (81.5%), followed by cranial pathology (10.9%) and peripheral nerve (7.6%). The motivations for filing claims were mostly related to alleged surgical (56.3%) or diagnostic errors (22.3%). Most of these claims were denied (151/238; 63.4%), and fewer were settled (42/238; 17.6%), sustained (31/238; 13.0%), or closed without final decision (14/238; 5.9%).

CONCLUSION

Neurosurgery-related malpractice claims primarily involved spinal pathology and were mostly related to alleged treatment errors. Most claims did not result in compensation because there seemed to be no liability or culpable injury. However, the annual risk for a claim for Dutch neurosurgeons is considerable.

Impact of System and Diagnostic Errors on Medical Litigation Outcomes: Machine Learning-Based Prediction Models

No prediction models using use conventional logistic models and machine learning exist for medical litigation outcomes involving medical doctors. Using a logistic model and three machine learning models, such as decision tree, random forest, and light-gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), we evaluated the prediction ability for litigation outcomes among medical litigation in Japan. The prediction model with LightGBM had a good predictive ability, with an area under the curve of 0.894 (95% CI; 0.893–0.895) in all patients’ data. When evaluating the feature importance using the SHApley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) value, the system error was the most significant predictive factor in all clinical settings for medical doctors’ loss in lawsuits. The other predictive factors were diagnostic error in outpatient settings, facility size in inpatients, and procedures or surgery settings. Our prediction model is useful for estimating medical litigation outcomes.

"There's got to be a better way": Global Perspectives of Medicolegal Environment and Neurosurgical Socioeconomics

Neurosurgery is considered to have one of the greatest risks of medical malpractice claims. However, medicolegal issues in neurosurgery are often disregarded and underrated worldwide. Medical errors in the neurosurgical field can be attributed to multiple factors, including highly morbid pathologies, the technical difficulty of neurosurgical procedures, and the involvement and interaction of a multidisciplinary team in the care of neurosurgical patients. Health care providers worldwide are at risk of lawsuits, sometimes even when no deviation from the standard of care had occurred in a given case. Often, governments use additional tactics to decrease the burden on compensators and extrajudicial institutions and to decrease the court's flow of irrational litigation. Continuous amendments to health care acts and newer reforms to address these issues have materialized worldwide. In the present narrative review, we have reviewed the global perspectives of medicolegal issues, with a focus on neurosurgical discipline.