Building a National Surveillance System for Malpractice Claims.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mello MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5134343 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Building a National Surveillance System for Malpractice Claims.
Mello Michelle M MM Studdert David M DM
Health services research 20161201
Similar Datasets
Project description:Study designRetrospective cross-sectional study.ObjectiveTo investigate the prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors of spine-related malpractice claims in China in a 2-year period.MethodsThe arbitration files of the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) were reviewed for spine-related malpractice claims. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were conducted on claim characteristics, clinical data, plaintiff's main allegations, and arbitration outcomes.ResultsA total of 288 cases of spinal claims filed in the CMA between January 2016 and December 2017 were included. Most claims were found in lumbar degenerative disorders (59.4%), lumbar trauma (13.2%), and cervical degenerative disorders (11.8%). The most common adverse events (AEs) leading to claims were new neurologic deficit (NND) (47.6%), infection (11.5%), and insufficient symptom relief (10.4%). The most common patient allegation was surgical error (66.0%), although the main arbitrated cause of AEs was disease/treatment itself (49.0%), while providers were judged as mainly responsible in only 47.3% cases. In multivariate regression analysis, cervical spine, misdiagnosis/mistreatment, and unpredictable emergency correlated with more severe damage to patients; minimally invasive surgery was predictive of judgment in plaintiff's favor, while claims in the eastern region and unpredictable emergencies were predictive of defendant's favor; only NND was associated with being arbitrated as surgical error in surgical cases where surgeons accepted major liability.ConclusionThe current study provided a descriptive overview and risk factor analysis of spine-related malpractice claims in China. Gaining improved understanding of the facts and causes of malpractice claims may help providers reduce the risk of claims and subsequent litigation.
| S-EPMC10448087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo examine characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving radiation oncologists closed during a 10-year period.Methods and materialsMalpractice claims filed against radiation oncologists from 2003 to 2012 collected by a nationwide liability insurance trade association were analyzed. Outcomes included the nature of claims and indemnity payments, including associated presenting diagnoses, procedures, alleged medical errors, and injury severity. We compared the likelihood of a claim resulting in payment in relation to injury severity categories (death as referent) using binomial logistic regression.ResultsThere were 362 closed claims involving radiation oncology, 102 (28%) of which were paid, resulting in $38 million in indemnity payments. The most common alleged errors included "improper performance" (38% of closed claims, 18% were paid; 29% [$11 million] of total indemnity), "errors in diagnosis" (25% of closed claims, 46% were paid; 44% [$17 million] of total indemnity), and "no medical misadventure" (14% of closed claims, 8% were paid; less than 1% [$148,000] of total indemnity). Another physician was named in 32% of claims, and consent issues/breach of contract were cited in 18%. Claims for injury resulting in death represented 39% of closed claims and 25% of total indemnity. "Improper performance" was the primary alleged error associated with injury resulting in death. Compared with claims involving death, major temporary injury (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-5.85, P=.009), significant permanent injury (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.48-6.46, P=.003), and major permanent injury (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.89-16.15, P=.002) had a higher likelihood of a claim resulting in indemnity payment.ConclusionsImproper performance was the most common alleged malpractice error. Claims involving significant or major injury were more likely to be paid than those involving death. Insights into the nature of liability claims against radiation oncologists may help direct efforts to improve quality of care and minimize the risk of being sued.
| S-EPMC5463541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of improved patient safety practices with medical malpractice claims and costs in the perinatal units of acute care hospitals.Data sourcesMalpractice and harm data from participating hospitals; litigation records and medical malpractice claims data from American Excess Insurance Exchange, RRG, whose data are managed by Premier Insurance Management Services, Inc. (owned by Premier Inc., a health care improvement company).Study designA quasi-experimental prospective design to compare baseline and postintervention data. Statistical significance tests for differences were performed using chi-square, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and t-test.Data collectionClaims data were collected and evaluated by experienced senior claims managers through on-site claim audits to evaluate claim frequency, severity, and financial information. Data were provided to the analyzing institution through confidentiality contracts.Principal findingsThere is a significant reduction in the number of perinatal malpractice claims paid, losses paid, and indemnity payments (43.9 percent, 77.6 percent, and 84.6 percent, respectively) following interventions to improve perinatal patient safety and reduce perinatal harm. This compares with no significant reductions in the nonperinatal claims in the same hospitals during the same time period.ConclusionsThe number of perinatal malpractice claims and dollar amount of claims payments decreased significantly in the participating hospitals, while there was no significant decrease in nonperinatal malpractice claims activity in the same hospitals.
| S-EPMC5134345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the litigation experience in a state with strict tort reform of a large public university health system that has committed to transparency with patients and families in resolving medical errors.Data sources/study settingSecondary data collected from The University of Texas System, which self-insures approximately 6,000 physicians at six health campuses across the state. We obtained internal case management data for all medical malpractice claims closed during 1 year before and 6 recent years following the enactment of state tort reform legislation.Study designWe retrospectively reviewed information about malpractice claimants, malpractice claims, and the process and outcome of dispute resolution.Data collection/extraction methodsWe accessed an internal case management database, supplemented by both electronic and paper records compiled by the university's Office of General Counsel.Principal findingsClosed claims dropped from 244 in 2001-2002 to an annual mean of 96 in 2009-2015, closures following lawsuits from 136 in 2001-2002 to an annual mean of 28 in 2009-2015, and paid claims from 60 in 2001 to an annual mean of 20 in 2009-2015. Patterns of resolution suggest efforts by the university to provide some compensation to injured patients in cases that were no longer economically viable for plaintiffs' lawyers to litigate. The percentage of payments relating to cases in which lawsuits had been filed decreased from 82 percent in 2001-2002 to 47 percent in 2009-2012 and again to 29 percent in 2012-2015, although most paid claimants were represented by attorneys. Unrepresented patients received payment in 13 cases closed in 2009-2012 (22 percent of payments; mean amount $60,566) and in 24 cases closed in 2012-2015 (41 percent of payments; mean amount $109,410). Even after tort reform, however, claims that resulted in payment remained slow to resolve, which was worsened for claimants subject to Medicare secondary payer rules. Strict confidentiality became a more common condition of settlement, although restrictions were subsequently relaxed in order to further transparency and improve patient safety.ConclusionsMalpractice litigation risk diminished substantially for a public university health system in Texas following legal changes that reduced rights to sue and available damages. Health systems operating in a low-tort environment should work with policy makers, plaintiffs' attorneys, and patient groups to assist unrepresented patients, facilitate early mediation, limit nondisclosure obligations following settlement, and expedite the resolution of Medicare liens.
| S-EPMC5134350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinicians are motivated to provide safe, high-quality care to patients with chronic liver disease. This includes the desire to avoid litigation. Data are limited regarding the actual sources of medicolegal risk in chronic liver disease.MethodsWe conducted a review of a national liability insurer (Candello) with an additional granular analysis of our institution's registry of liability claims. We included closed cases involving chronic liver disease-related encounters between 2012 and 2021. We determined rates of legal claims from a denominator of unique patients with cirrhosis or transplant care seen over the study period.ResultsLocal database: We retrieved 39 claims of which 15 involved patients with non-cirrhotic chronic liver disease, 13 involved cirrhosis (0.06% incidence), and 11 involved patients who underwent transplantation (0.6% incidence). Most claims involved periprocedural complications. Others included adverse reactions to prophylactic plasma transfusion, medication-induced HE, and falls/fractures.National databaseWe found 94 claims related to liver disease out of 102,575 (0.09%) total claims. Overall, 56% involved diagnosis-related issues (failure/delay in ordering a diagnostic test, failure to appreciate and reconcile a symptom/sign or result, or the misinterpretation of a diagnostic study). Miscommunication between providers and between providers and patients was implicated in 22% of cases. Patient behavior-related factors (nonadherence with scheduled appointments, treatments, or diagnostic testing) factored in 20% of cases. Selection or the management of therapy played a role in 7% of cases. Very rarely were cases associated with technical skill (4%), house staff supervision (3%), or weekend/holiday care (1%). Fifty-one (55%) claims involved HCC.ConclusionWe provide the rates and reasons for medical malpractice claims in hepatology.
| S-EPMC10109843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMany physicians believe that most medical malpractice claims are random events. This study assessed the association of prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future paid claims; whether public disclosure of prior paid claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time.ObjectiveTo examine the association of 1 or more prior paid medical malpractice claims with future paid claims.Design, setting, and participantsThis study assessed the association between prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future claims; whether public disclosure of prior claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time. This retrospective case-control study included all 881 876 licensed physicians in the US. All data analysis took place between July, 2018 and January, 2023.ExposurePaid medical malpractice claims.Main outcome and measuresAssociation between a prior paid medical malpractice claim and likelihood of a paid claim in a future period, compared with simulated results expected if paid claims are random events. Using the same outcomes, we also assessed whether public disclosure of paid claims affects future paid claim rates.ResultsThis study included all 881 876 physicians licensed to practice in the US at the time of the study. Overall, 3.3% of the 841 961 physicians with 0 paid claims in the prior period had 1 or more claims in the future period vs 12.4% of the 34 512 physicians with 1 paid claim in the prior period; 22.4% of the 4189 physicians with 2 paid claims in the prior period; and 37% of the 1214 physicians with 3 paid claims in the prior period. The association between prior claims and future claims was similar for high-medical-malpractice-risk and lower-risk specialties; 1 prior-period claim was associated with a 3.1 times higher likelihood of a future-period claim for high-risk specialties (95% CI, 2.8-3.4) vs a 4.2 times higher likelihood for lower-risk specialties (95% CI, 3.8-4.6). The predictive power of a prior paid claim for future claims declined gradually as the time since the prior claim increased, for prior or future periods up to 10 years. Public disclosure did not affect the association between prior and future paid claims.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of paid medical malpractice claims for all US physicians, a single prior paid claim was associated with substantial, long-lived higher future claim risk, independent of whether a physician was practicing in a high- or low-risk specialty, or whether a state publicly disclosed paid claims. Timely, noncoercive intervention, including education, has the potential to reduce future claims.
| S-EPMC9918873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCommunication amongst team members is critical to providing safe, effective medical care. We investigated the role of communication failures in patient injury using the Anesthesia Closed Claims Project database.MethodsClaims associated with surgical/procedural and obstetric anaesthesia and postoperative pain management for adverse events from 2004 or later were included. Communication was defined as transfer of information between two or more parties. Failure was defined as communication that was incomplete, inaccurate, absent, or not timely. We classified root causes of failures as content, audience, purpose, or occasion with inter-rater reliability assessed by kappa. Claims with communication failures contributing to injury (injury-related communication failures; n=389) were compared with claims without any communication failures (n=521) using Fisher's exact test, t-test, or Mann-Whitney U-tests.ResultsAt least one communication failure contributing to patient injury occurred in 43% (n=389) out of 910 claims (κ=0.885). Patients in claims with injury-related communication failures were similar to patients in claims without failures, except that failures were more common in outpatient settings (34% vs 26%; P=0.004). Fifty-two claims had multiple communication failures for a total of 446 injury-related failures, and 47% of failures occurred during surgery, 28% preoperatively, and 23% postoperatively. Content failures (insufficient, inaccurate, or no information transmitted) accounted for 60% of the 446 communication failures.ConclusionsCommunication failure contributed to patient injury in 43% of anaesthesia malpractice claims. Patient/case characteristics in claims with communication failures were similar to those without failures, except that failures were more common in outpatient settings.
| S-EPMC8563338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionIs a higher use of resources by physicians associated with a reduced risk of malpractice claims?MethodsUsing data on nearly all admissions to acute care hospitals in Florida during 2000-09 linked to malpractice history of the attending physician, this study investigated whether physicians in seven specialties with higher average hospital charges in a year were less likely to face an allegation of malpractice in the following year, adjusting for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and diagnosis. To provide clinical context, the study focused on obstetrics, where the choice of caesarean deliveries are suggested to be influenced by defensive medicine, and whether obstetricians with higher adjusted caesarean rates in a year had fewer alleged malpractice incidents the following year.Study answer and limitationsThe data included 24,637 physicians, 154,725 physician years, and 18,352,391 hospital admissions; 4342 malpractice claims were made against physicians (2.8% per physician year). Across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. For example, among internists, the probability of experiencing an alleged malpractice incident in the following year ranged from 1.5% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 1.7%) in the bottom spending fifth ($19,725 (£12,800; €17,400) per hospital admission) to 0.3% (0.2% to 0.5%) in the top fifth ($39,379 per hospital admission). In six of the specialties, a greater use of resources was associated with statistically significantly lower subsequent rates of alleged malpractice incidents. A principal limitation of this study is that information on illness severity was lacking. It is also uncertain whether higher spending is defensively motivated.What this study addsWithin specialty and after adjustment for patient characteristics, higher resource use by physicians is associated with fewer malpractice claims.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (grant 1DP5OD017897-01 to ABJ) and National Institute of Aging (R37 AG036791 to JB). The authors have no competing interests or additional data to share.
| S-EPMC4633452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Incident reporting is an important method to identify risks because learning from the reports is crucial in developing and implementing effective improvements. A medical malpractice claims analysis is an important tool in any case. Both incident reports and claims show cases of damage caused to patients, despite incident reporting comprising near misses, cases where no event occurred and no-harm events. We therefore compare the two worlds to assess whether they are similar or definitively different. From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2021, the claims database of Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS collected 843 claims. From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, the incident-reporting database collected 1919 events. In order to compare the two, we used IBNR calculation, usually adopted by the insurance industry to determine loss to a company and to evaluate the real number of adverse events that occurred. Indeed, the number of reported adverse events almost overlapped with the total number of events, which is indicative that incurred-but-not-reported events are practically irrelevant. The distribution of damage events reported as claims in the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 and related to incidents that occurred in the months of the same period, grouped by quarter, was then compared with the distribution of damage events reported as adverse events and sentinel events in the same period, grouped by quarter. The analysis of the claims database showed that the claims trend is slightly decreasing. However, the analysis of the reports database showed that, in the period 2020-2021, the reports trend was increasing. In our study, the comparison of the two, malpractice claims and incident reporting, documented many differences and weak areas of overlap. Nevertheless, this contribution represents the first attempt to compare the two and new studies focusing on single types of adverse events are, therefore, desirable.
| S-EPMC9739332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to examine the epidemiology of malpractice claims in primary care.DesignA 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.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsMalpractice claimants.Primary outcomeMalpractice 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC3693415 | biostudies-literature