Is a higher use of resources by physicians associated with a reduced risk of malpractice claims?
Little information exists on U.S. physicians who have been disciplined with licensure or restriction-of-clinical-privileges actions or have had malpractice payments because of sexual misconduct. Our objectives were to: (1) determine the number of these physicians and compare their age groups' distribution with that of the general U.S. physician population; (2) compare the type of disciplinary actions taken against these physicians with actions taken against physicians disciplined for other offenses; (3) compare the characteristics and type of injury among victims of these physicians with those of victims in reports for physicians with other offenses in malpractice-payment reports; and (4) determine the percentages of physicians with clinical-privileges or malpractice-payment reports due to sexual misconduct who were not disciplined by medical boards.
Although physician concerns about medical malpractice are substantial, national data are lacking on the rate of claims paid on behalf of US physicians by specialty.
Compared with other doctors, surgeons are at an increased risk of medicolegal events, including patient complaints and negligence claims. This retrospective study aimed to describe the frequency and nature of complaints involving surgeons compared with physicians.
There is evidence that most adverse events result from individual errors and that most malpractice suits with payouts reflect both patient injury and error.
We examine the association between emergency physician characteristics and practice factors with the risk of being named in a malpractice claim.
Trends in malpractice awards and adverse actions (e.g., revocation of provider license) following an act or omission constituting medical error or negligence were examined. The National Practitioner Data Bank was used to compare rates of malpractice reports and adverse actions for physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs). During 2005 through 2014, there ranged from 11.2 to 19.0 malpractice payment reports per 1,000 physicians, 1.4 to 2.4 per 1,000 PAs, and 1.1 to 1.4 per 1,000 NPs. Physician median payments ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 times higher than PAs or NPs. Diagnosis-related malpractice allegations varied by provider type, with physicians having significantly fewer reports (31.9%) than PAs (52.8%) or NPs (40.6%) over the observation period. Trends in malpractice payment reports may reflect policy enactments to decrease liability.
The authors present a case of suspected malpractice linked to the onset of hemidiaphragm paralysis after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The approach to the case is shown from a medico-legal point of view. It is demonstrated how, after a thorough review of the literature, this was not a case of medical malpractice but an unforeseeable event. This paper aims at contributing to the very few reports dealing with the onset of hemidiaphragm paralysis after RARP, thus fostering clinical knowledge of these rare events and meanwhile providing useful data for the medico-legal handling in case of alleged negligence of surgeons. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Analysis of Professional Malpractice Claims in Implant Dentistry in Italy from Insurance Company Technical Reports, 2006 to 2010
- The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
- Published about 4 years ago
Purpose: The aim of the study was to analyze the characteristics of implant dentistry claims in Italy based on insurance company technical reports for malpractice claims. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty-one technical reports of cases of professional malpractice in implant dentistry between 2006 and 2010 were included in the study. Data included the sex and age of the patient and dentist, the kind of negligence claimed, and the damages awarded as a consequence of the alleged misconduct. Results: Of the cases examined in this study, 9.9% went to court. The patients were female in 73.6% of the cases. Most of the technical errors were committed during implant insertion (82.6%). In 50.4% of cases, the technical error involved the surrounding structures, such as damage to the inferior alveolar nerve (32.2%) or the lingual nerve (2.5%), invasion of the maxillary sinus (9.1%), or pulpal dental necrosis in adjacent teeth (6.6%). Incomplete clinical documentation was apparent in 54.5% of cases. In 9.9% of cases, a civil suit had already been filed before a visit, and medicolegal advice from the insurance expert had been procured. Conclusion: The discrepancy between the total number of cases examined and those that went to court indicates that implant malpractice claims in Italy are most often settled out of court. The large number of intraoperative errors seen and the high proportion of injuries to surrounding structures suggest that implant dentists would benefit from further specific training. Also, clinical documentation vital to a defense against any claims relating to professional misconduct was incomplete or absent in more than half of the cases.
Our objectives were to evaluate factors raised in malpractice litigation in which plaintiffs alleged that physician negligence led to olfactory dysfunction.