Sociodemographic characteristics associated with a higher wish to complain about health care

OBJECTIVES

Previous research has shown that patients who are older, less educated, or have lower income are less likely to lodge complaints about health care. This variation may reflect less wish to complain or inequitable access to complaint channels or remedies. We aimed to investigate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and health users' wish to complain.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized case vignette survey among 6756 Danish men aged 45-70 years (30% response rate).

METHODS

Assuming they received the care in vignettes about prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen) testing, participants rated their wish to complain on a 5-point Likert scale. Information on sociodemographic characteristics was obtained through self-reports and municipality-level information from national registries.

RESULTS

Lower education was associated with an increased wish to complain (mean Likert difference 0.44 [95% CI 0.36-0.51]; P < .001). The wish to complain was higher among unemployed men (difference 0.16 [95% CI 0.04-0.28]; P < .011) and those with a chronic illness (difference 0.06 [95% CI 0.02-0.10]; P < .004). Given the same healthcare scenarios, there was no difference in wish to complain among health users who were retired, living rurally, or from lower income groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Health users who are less educated, lower income, elderly, or from rural or minority communities appear to be as likely, or more likely, to wish to complain about health care as others. Yet, younger, well-educated, and higher income citizens are overrepresented in actual complaint statistics. The finding suggests persisting inequalities in the suitability or accessibility of complaint processes for some groups of patients.

Risks and errors in medicine. Concept and evaluation of an optional study module with integrated teaching of ethical, legal and communicative competencies

Objective: The presentation and discussion of the content, methodology and evaluation results of a course on "Risks and Errors in Medical Science", adopting an integrated approach for the teaching of ethical, legal and communicative aspects. Method: Written, structured evaluation using the adapted evaluation form "Evasys" as well as open questions on positive and negative aspects of the course and assessment of the effects thereof from the participants' viewpoint. The free text responses are evaluated according to the principles of qualitative content analysis. Results: Thirty-two from thirty-six participants (88.9%) evaluated the course in written form. The value for the global assessment of the course is a 1.7 (1=very good, 6=unsatisfactory). The self-assessed learning success was evaluated with a 1.9. In the qualitative analysis of the free text answers the case orientated teaching, the use of simulated patients as well as the legal content and the ethical models of the doctor-patient relationship were evaluated positively. Negative aspects of the course were, among other things, the weighting of the contents and the limited amount of time allotted. Impacts and changes were identified by the students in terms of knowledge of legal aspects, reflection on their own action and the training and further development of communication aptitudes. The students saw the relevance of the course for their studies especially in the supplement to the compulsory curriculum as well as in the significance of the content of medical law. Conclusions: The experience of the authors and the written evaluation results show that the concept of integrated teaching can be implemented in medical studies and that it is predominantly evaluated positively. The primary challenges are the weighting of the different contents and methods as well as the comparatively high demand for coordination among representatives of various disciplines.

Incidence, duration and cost of futile treatment in end-of-life hospital admissions to three Australian public-sector tertiary hospitals: a retrospective multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the incidence, duration and cost of futile treatment for end-of-life hospital admissions.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicentre cohort study involving a clinical audit of hospital admissions.

SETTING

Three Australian public-sector tertiary hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who died while admitted to one of the study hospitals over a 6-month period in 2012.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidences of futile treatment among end-of-life admissions; length of stay in both ward and intensive care settings for the duration that patients received futile treatments; health system costs associated with futile treatments; monetary valuation of bed days associated with futile treatment.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of futile treatment in end-of-life admissions was 12.1% across the three study hospitals (range 6.0%-19.6%). For admissions involving futile treatment, the mean length of stay following the onset of futile treatment was 15 days, with 5.25 of these days in the intensive care unit. The cost associated with futile bed days was estimated to be $AA12.4 million for the three study hospitals using health system costs, and $A988 000 when using a decision maker's willingness to pay for bed days. This was extrapolated to an annual national health system cost of $A153.1 million and a decision maker's willingness to pay of $A12.3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence rate and cost of futile treatment in end-of-life admissions varied between hospitals. The overall impact was substantial in terms of both the bed days and cost incurred. An increased awareness of these economic costs may generate support for interventions designed to reduce futile treatments. We did not include emotional hardship or pain and suffering, which represent additional costs.

ONE SIZE FITS ALL? ON PATIENT AUTONOMY, MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING, AND THE IMPACT OF CULTURE

While both medical law and medical ethics have developed in a way that has sought to prioritise patient autonomy, it is less clear whether it has done so in a way that enhances the self-determination of patients from non-western backgrounds. In this article, we consider the desire of some patients from non-western backgrounds for family involvement in decision-making and argue that this desire is not catered for effectively in either medical law or medical ethics. We examine an alternative approach based on relational autonomy that might serve both to allow such patients to exercise their self-determination while still allowing them to include family members in the decision-making process.

Clinical research involving minors in international and serbian regulations

BACKGROUND

Participation in clinical trials can be useful for the health of a person, in who it is conducted, but it does not have to be - it can even be harmful. Therefore, primary motive to accept such risk is humanity and human wish to contribute to the progress of medicine; this is expressed by personal consent. The consent, however, can be an expression of personal humanity, and for this, it is not logical that someone can give consent on behalf of someone else, as it is done by a legally authorized representative on behalf of a minor. Therefore, authors raise 3 questions: What are the reasons to consider representative's consent acceptable? How should a model of regulations look like in order to provide the most complete possible protection to a minor? Is actual regulation of minors' position within international and Serbian law, analyzed here by authors for their specific solutions, acceptable? Representative's consent is acceptable only for therapeutic research, because these can bring benefits to everyone's health, including a minor in which those are conducted - this is an acceptable (secondary) motive of participation in the research. Expression of humanity on other's behalf, typical for non-therapeutic research, is not acceptable; this makes ban of minors' participation in non-therapeutic research more appropriate regulation model. International regulations are not in accordance to results presented in the paper for allowing participation of minors both in therapeutic and non-therapeutic research. Serbian regulation is closer to the most acceptable regulation model.

Characteristics of paid malpractice claims settled in and out of court in the USA: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

An analysis of paid malpractice claims judged in court compared with those settled out of court may help explain perceptions of malpractice risk.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis and cross-sectional comparison of malpractice claims. Evaluated trends in the number and proportion of paid claims, and mean payment amount by resolution type; identified patient, physician and claim characteristics associated with each resolution type. Examined the effects of resolution type on payment amount and time to claim resolution.

SETTING

Claims paid on behalf of US physicians reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) from 2005 to 2009.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Type of resolution, claim characteristics, payment amount and time to resolution.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2009, there were 58 667 claims paid on behalf of US physicians. Of these paid claims, 56 850 (96.9%) were settled outside court, and 1817 (3.1%) were judged in court. There was no significant change in the proportion of paid claims resolved by settlement versus judgement over time (p=0.83); nor was there a significant change in the mean payment amount in either resolution group (settlement, p=0.94; judgement, p=0.36). The claims in which the physicians were under 50, had prior malpractice reports, which were paid by a state malpractice programme, for adverse events to a fetus, and for surgical or obstetric error were more likely to be judged in court. The mean payment amount (US$592 283 vs US$317 447, p<0.01), per cent of payments over US$1 million (41.82% vs 15.43%, p<0.01), and time to decision (6.50 years vs 4.93 years, p<0.01) were significantly higher in judged claims.

CONCLUSIONS

Although only a very small percentage of paid malpractice claims in the USA are judged in court, a number of characteristics differ between settled and judged claims. Such differences may influence perceptions of malpractice risk and future reform efforts.

Doctors' willingness to give honest answers about end-of-life practices: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to (1) evaluate the extent to which doctors in New Zealand would be willing to answer honestly questions about their care of patients at the end of their lives and (2) identify the assurances that would encourage this. Results were compared with findings from a previous pilot study from the UK.

DESIGN

Survey study involving a mailed questionnaire.

SETTING

New Zealand hospital and community-based medical care settings.

PARTICIPANTS

The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 800 doctors in New Zealand who were vocationally registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand in disciplines involving caring for patients at the end of their lives.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Willingness to provide honest answers about various aspects of end-of-life care; assurances that might increase willingness to provide honest answers to questions about end-of-life practices.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were returned by 436 doctors. The majority of respondents (59.9-91.5%) indicated willingness to provide honest answers to such questions. However, more than a third of doctors were unwilling to give honest answers to certain questions regarding euthanasia. These results are comparable with the UK data. Complete anonymity was the assurance most likely to encourage honest answering, with most of the respondents preferring the use of anonymous written replies. Respondents were less reassured by survey endorsements from regulatory bodies. Themes in free comments included the deterrent effect of medicolegal consequences, fear of censure from society, peers and the media and concerns about the motivations and potential uses of such research.

CONCLUSIONS

Many New Zealand doctors were willing to give honest answers to questions about end-of-life practices, particularly if anonymity was guaranteed; others, however, expressed doubts or indicated that they would not be willing to provide honest answers to questions of this sort.

Parental comprehension of the benefits/risks of first-line randomised clinical trials in children with solid tumours: a two-stage cross-sectional interview study

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the parental understanding of informed consent information in first-line randomised clinical trials (RCTs) including children with malignant solid tumours and to assess parents' needs for decision-making.

DESIGN

Observational prospective study.

SETTING

3 paediatric oncology centres in the Parisian region in France.

PARTICIPANTS

53 parents were approached to participate in a RCT for their child with malignant solid tumour, over a 1-year period. 40 parents have been interviewed in our study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Parental understanding of information in RCTs, parents' needs for decision-making. Parents were questioned by a psychologist, independent of the paediatric oncology teams, using a semidirected interview, 1 (M1) and 6 months (M6) after the consent was sought.

RESULTS

18 parents (45%) did not understand the concept of randomisation. Half of the parents could explain neither the aim of the clinical trial nor the potential benefit to their child of inclusion. 35 parents (87.5%) expressed very few specific risks related to the trial. Being mostly French-speaking (p=0.03) and the reading of the information sheet by the parents (p=0.0025) improved their understanding. The parental comprehension did not differ between M1 and M6. The principal factors underlying their decision were confidence in the medical team (39%), wish to access to the best treatment (37%) and the best quality of life (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite medical explanations, parents have limited knowledge in some areas in first-line RCTs and improvements of information process are required. The risks specific to the randomised trial are underestimated by parents and the unproven nature of the treatment is not well-known or understood.

The epidemiology of malpractice claims in primary care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the epidemiology of malpractice claims in primary care.

DESIGN

A computerised systematic literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they reported original data (≥10 cases) pertinent to malpractice claims, were based in primary care and were published in the English language. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Malpractice claimants.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Malpractice claim (defined as a written demand for compensation for medical injury). We recorded: medical misadventure cited in claims, missed/delayed diagnoses cited in claims, outcome of claims, prevalence of claims and compensation awarded to claimants.

RESULTS

Of the 7152 articles retrieved by electronic search, a total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative analysis. Twenty-eight studies presented data from medical indemnity malpractice claims databases and six studies presented survey data. Fifteen studies were based in the USA, nine in the UK, seven in Australia, one in Canada and two in France. The commonest medical misadventure resulting in claims was failure to or delay in diagnosis, which represented 26-63% of all claims across included studies. Common missed or delayed diagnoses included cancer and myocardial infarction in adults and meningitis in children. Medication error represented the second commonest domain representing 5.6-20% of all claims across included studies. The prevalence of malpractice claims in primary care varied across countries. In the USA and Australia when compared with other clinical disciplines, general practice ranked in the top five specialties accounting for the most claims, representing 7.6-20% of all claims. However, the majority of claims were successfully defended.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of malpractice claims in primary care highlights diagnosis and medication error as areas to be prioritised in developing educational strategies and risk management systems.