Risk management issues and ethical dilemmas
Steven Selbst2003, Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
EDIATRIC EMERGENCY medicine is a high risk specialty. Surveys of the American Academy of Pediatrics membership have shown that one third of pediatricians have been named in a malpractice suit, and many of those cases involved acutely ill or injured children. 1 Although all physicians have significant legal liability, medical malpractice cases involve the emergency department (ED) in a disproportionate number of cases. In one study of 262 pediatric cases alleging malpractice, the ED accounted for 45% of hospital-related cases. 2 Physicians are involved in 88% of ED claims, and nurses account for 7% as the principle participants. 3 Pre-hospital care providers are less likely to be sued for malpractice; however, they are not invulnerable. Most lawsuits against physicians are dropped or settled out of court. 4 Only about 10% actually reach a jury verdict. However, the strain of a lawsuit is still quite burdensome for all involved. It can result in significant emotional stress as well as a loss of time and money. Even if the case does not go to trial, it can still prove quite expensive. Malpractice suits may be an unpleasant and undeniable part of emergency medicine. However, they are not inevitable. Like other pediatric diseases and childhood injuries, some malpractice suits are predictable and preventable. If we begin to understand the etiology, epidemiology, and pathology of malpractice suits, we can take steps to avert them. 5
Related papers
An Epidemiologic Study of Closed Emergency Department Malpractice Claims in a National Database of Physician Malpractice Insurers
Academic Emergency Medicine, 2010
Objectives: The objective was to perform an epidemiologic study of emergency department (ED) medical malpractice claims using data maintained by the Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA), a trade association whose participating malpractice insurance carriers collectively insure over 60% of practicing physicians in the United States. Methods: All closed malpractice claims in the PIAA database between 1985 and 2007, where an event in an ED was alleged to have caused injury to a patient 18 years of age or older, were retrospectively reviewed. Study outcomes were the frequency of claims and average indemnity payments associated with specific errors identified by the malpractice insurer, as well as associated health conditions, primary specialty groups, and injury severity. Indemnity payments include money paid to claimants as a result of settlement or court adjudication, and this financial obligation to compensate a claimant constitutes the insured's financial liability. These payments do not include the expenses associated with resolving a claim, such as attorneys' fees. The study examined claims by adjudicatory outcome, associated financial liability, and expenses of litigation. Adjudicatory outcome refers to the legal disposition of a claim as it makes its way into and through the court system and includes resolution of claims by formal verdict as well as by settlement. The study also investigated how the number of claims, average indemnity payments, paid-toclose ratios (the percentage of closed claims that resolved with a payment to the plaintiff), and litigation expenses have trended over the 23-year study period. Results: The authors identified 11,529 claims arising from an event originating in an ED, representing over $664 million in total liability over the 23-year study period. Emergency physicians (EPs) were the primary defendants in 19% of ED claims. The largest sources of error, as identified by the individual malpractice insurer, included errors in diagnosis (37%), followed by improper performance of a procedure (17%). In 18% of claims, no error could be identified by the insurer. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI; 5%), fractures (6%), and appendicitis (2%) were the health conditions associated with the highest number of claims. Over two-thirds of claims (70%) closed without payment to the claimant. Most claims that paid out did so through settlement (29%). Only 7% of claims were resolved by verdict, and 85% of those were in favor of the clinician. Over time, the average indemnity payments and expenses of litigation, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled, while both the total number of claims and number of paid claims decreased. Conclusions: Emergency physicians were the primary defendants in a relatively small proportion of ED claims. The disease processes associated with the highest numbers of claims included AMI, appendicitis, and fractures. The largest share of overall indemnity was attributed to errors in the diagnostic process. The financial liability of medical malpractice in the ED is substantial, yet the vast majority of claims resolve in favor of the clinician. Efforts to mitigate risk in the ED should include the diverse clinical specialties who work in this complex environment, with attention to those health conditions and potential errors with the highest risk.
Medical malpractice claim risk in emergency departments
Research work, 2018
Medical malpractice claims are a major problem for emergency physicians and for the health system which must be addressed in a rational and effective fashion: claim analysis seems the best way to identify risk factors and risk areas and to elaborate risk management recommendations. The Emergency Department (ED) is one of the areas at higher risk. Medical diagnoses associated with the highest number of claims are acute myocardial infarction, fractures, appendicitis, abdominal/pelvic symptoms, aortic aneurism and open wounds to fingers. The present paper emphasizes the necessity for ED emergency physicians to pay special attention when facing these health conditions and seeks to provide indications in order to reduce litigation.
Characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving emergency medicine physicians
Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 2020
BackgroundIdentifying characteristics of malpractice claims involving emergency medicine (EM) physicians allows leaders to develop patient safety initiatives to prevent future harm events.MethodsA retrospective study was performed of paid/unpaid claims closed 2007 to 2016 from Comparative Benchmarking System. Claims were identified by physician specialty involved (EM, internal medicine, general surgery). Various characteristics were compared by physician specialty. Multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with claim payment, in which (1) physician specialty was included as a predictor and (2) only the subset involving EM physicians was analyzed.ResultsOf 54,772 claims, 2760 involved EM physicians, 5886 involved internists, and 3207 involved surgeons. Death was the most common severity among EM claims (34%). Diagnosis‐related allegations accounted for 58%, higher than 42% and 11% of claims involving internists and surgeons, respectively (P < 0.0001). T...
Preventability of malpractice claims in emergency medicine: A closed claims study
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1990
We conducted a retrospective study of 262 malpractice claims against emergency physicians insured in Massachusetts by the state-mandated insurance carrier; these 262 claims were closed in the years 1980 through 1987. A total of $11,800,156 in indemnity and expenses was spent for these 262 claims. In 2II cases, the allegation was failure to diagnose a medical or surgical problem. One hundred eighty-four of these cases were included in the following eight diagnostic categories: chest pain, abdominal pain, wounds, fractures, pediatric fever/meningitis, aortic aneurysm, central nervous system bleeding, and epiglottitis. These eight categories accounted for 66.44% of the total dollars spent for the 262 claims. Because of the high incidence and dollar losses attached to these eight diagnostic categories, the Massachusetts Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians (MACEP) has developed clinical guidelines for the evaluation of these high-risk areas. Of the 184 high-risk claims, 99 claim files were reviewed; 45 of these reviewed claims were judged by physician reviewers as preventable by the application of the MACEP high-risk clinical guidelines. From 22.26% to 46.4% of the $ii,800,156 spent on the 262 claims could have been saved by the application of the MACEP clinical guidelines.
The most common patient safety issues resulting in legal action against neonatologists
Seminars in Perinatology, 2019
Common patient safety issues may result in injuries to babies in the newborn period. A medical malpractice lawsuit is one way in which an injured patient can obtain compensation for the injuries they sustained as the result of an error. There are a number of common areas of malpractice risk for neonatologists including the delivery room, jaundice, hypoglycemia, and late preterm infants. A better understanding of the medical malpractice system and common patient safety issues in neonatology can lead to protective strategies to reduce risk for untoward events and subsequent litigation. Strategies including maintaining competency, following national guidelines, and proper communication and documentation can improve the care and treatment of neonatal patients and their families resulting in less malpractice exposure. The rise of the patient safety movement has its roots in the seminal 1999 Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human, in which it was estimated that 98,000 patients die in hospitals every year from medical errors. 1 Patient safety efforts are primarily directed at avoiding harm to patients in the first place. When preventable harm does occur, the focus shifts to an in-depth investigation and analysis of what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening to patients in the future (e.g. a root cause analysis). But what about the patient who has already been harmed by medical error? A medical malpractice lawsuit is one way in which an injured patient can obtain compensation for the injuries sustained as the result of an error. It certainly is not the only way, and several 'Communication and Resolution' programs have been demonstrated to be a less adversarial form of compensating harmed patients. This chapter will discuss the medical malpractice system as it pertains to common patient safety issues in neonatology. General Legal Principles The United States Constitution, which dates back to 1789, lays out the framework of the Federal and State governments, both of which are divided into three separate but equal branches. The Executive branch, led by the President (Federal) and Governor (State), carries out the laws passed by the Legislative branch, which is made of the Senate and House of Representatives. The Judicial branch, led by the United States Supreme Court (Federal) and State Supreme Courts (State) reviews the ways in which the laws are applied and mediates between the other two branches. Medical malpractice is generally regulated by the States, and usage varies considerably. According to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), run by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), in 2015 there were 4.9 malpractice suits per 100,000 residents in Hawaii compared to 44.1 suits per 100,000 residents in Louisiana. 2 Malpractice is part of a broader area of law known as torts, which is French for injury or wrong. When a healthcare professional (HCP) fails to provide appropriate due care, they may be considered negligent and held accountable through the legal system.
An Introduction to Medical Malpractice in the United States
Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2009
Medical malpractice law in the United States is derived from English common law, and was developed by rulings in various state courts. Medical malpractice lawsuits are a relatively common occurrence in the United States. The legal system is designed to encourage extensive discovery and negotiations between adversarial parties with the goal of resolving the dispute without going to jury trial. The injured patient must show that the physician acted negligently in rendering care, and that such negligence resulted in injury. To do so, four legal elements must be proven: (1) a professional duty owed to the patient; (2) breach of such duty; (3) injury caused by the breach; and (4) resulting damages. Money damages, if awarded, typically take into account both actual economic loss and noneconomic loss, such as pain and suffering.
Three Cases of Emergency Department Medical Malpractice Involving “Consultations”: How Is Liability Legally Determined?
Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine, 2021
This article presents three successfully litigated medical malpractice cases involving emergency physicians and consultants. We discuss the respective case medical diagnoses, as well as established legal principles that determine in a court proceeding which provider will be liable. Specifically, we explain the legal principles of “patient physician relationship” and “affirmative act.”
Malpractice Claims Analysis Yields Widely Applicable Principles
Pediatric Cardiology, 2003
We received 50 claims of medical negligence in pediatric cardiology. From the analysis, patterns were identified and recommendations for improvement were found that apply generally to healthcare. Less than half (38%) of the claims were found to be medically meritorious. The impression of substandard care was often (7/50) created by an erroneous attribution of cause of death at autopsy. Both structured learning for caregivers and education of the public will reduce the frequency of malpractice forms-both valid and frivolous. Caregivers should document more effectively. The current tort system neither deters nor compensates as it was intended. The assignment of blame to a single individual is usually not in concert with the reality of modern medicine. Good health care is not a passive behavior; active participation by the public is required.
FAQs, facts, myths and misconceptions about medical malpractice part 1
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 2008
Medical Malpractice: Facing Real Problems and Finding Real Solutions
William Mary Law Review, 1994
Medical accidents kill more than three times as many people each year as do auto accidents 1 and produce many more perma, nent total or near-total disabilities than do workplace accidents. 2 Few victims of negligent medical injury-only between three to seven percent-bring any claim for compensation. 3 Of those who bring valid claims, at least in the eyes of the defendants' insurers, half do not prevail at trial. 4 Economic compensation generally falls below the injury victim's actual losses. The interval from injury to compensation averages six years in the State of New York, and those with the most serious injuries typically wait over a decade.
Related topics
Related papers
Malpractice claims analysis in the emergency department
2018
Medical malpractice claims are a major problem for emergency physicians and for the health system which must be addressed in a rational and effective fashion: claim analysis seems the best way to identify risk factors and risk areas and to elaborate risk management recommendations. The Emergency Department (ED) is one of the areas at higher risk. Medical diagnoses associated with the highest number of claims are acute myocardial infarction, fractures, appendicitis, abdominal/pelvic symptoms, aortic aneurism and open wounds to fingers. The present paper emphasizes the necessity for ED emergency physicians to pay special attention when facing these health conditions and seeks to provide indications in order to reduce litigation.
Physicians' Experience With Allegations of Medical Malpractice in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Pediatrics, 1997
Objective. To assess the personal experience of all practitioners of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) medicine in the United States with the medical malpractice system; in particular, to assess the circumstances of malpractice allegations in which they themselves had personal experience, and to extrapolate from their individual experiences to the field of neonatology in general.
Conditions that influence the impact of malpractice litigation risk on physicians’ behavior regarding patient safety
BMC Health Services Research, 2014
Background: Practicing safe behavior regarding patients is an intrinsic part of a physician's ethical and professional standards. Despite this, physicians practice behaviors that run counter to patient safety, including practicing defensive medicine, failing to report incidents, and hesitating to disclose incidents to patients. Physicians' risk of malpractice litigation seems to be a relevant factor affecting these behaviors. The objective of this study was to identify conditions that influence the relationship between malpractice litigation risk and physicians' behaviors. Methods: We carried out an exploratory field study, consisting of 22 in-depth interviews with stakeholders in the malpractice litigation process: five physicians, two hospital board members, five patient safety staff members from hospitals, three representatives from governmental healthcare bodies, three healthcare law specialists, two managing directors from insurance companies, one representative from a patient organization, and one representative from a physician organization. We analyzed the comments of the participants to find conditions that influence the relationship by developing codes and themes using a grounded approach. Results: We identified four factors that could affect the relationship between malpractice litigation risk and physicians' behaviors that run counter to patient safety: complexity of care, discussing incidents with colleagues, personalized responsibility, and hospitals' response to physicians following incidents. Conclusion: In complex care settings procedures should be put in place for how incidents will be discussed, reported and disclosed. The lack of such procedures can lead to the shift and off-loading of responsibilities, and the failure to report and disclose incidents. Hospital managers and healthcare professionals should take these implications of complexity into account, to create a supportive and blame-free environment. Physicians need to know that they can rely on the hospital management after reporting an incident. To create realistic care expectations, patients and the general public also need to be better informed about the complexity and risks of providing health care.
Medical Malpractice
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1979
In line with the overall tort system, the purpose of medical malpractice liability is to compensate patients who suffer an injury as a result of medical negligence. However, an effective tort system must balance appropriate compensation of victims with the need to prevent an unintended disincentive toward reasonable behavior which can have the effect of reducing the availability of quality care. BACKGROUND Patients are entitled to compensation from providers who fail to provide a reasonable standard of care, and as a result, cause a patient to suffer an injury. This is a basic tenant of tort law, which is a cornerstone of the American legal system. The purpose of the American legal system, however, is to appropriately compensate victims while protecting and encouraging desirable acts that produce goods and services demanded by others. Data suggest the medical malpractice system falls short of capturing legitimate cases and delivering compensation to victims. A seminal study conducted in 1990 found that fewer than two percent of patients identified as victims of medical malpractice filed claims. Six percent of injured patients who had not been victims of negligence also filed claims. In the end, only one percent of victims of medical malpractice receive compensation. 1 Medical malpractice litigation is also expensive. Since 1950, tort cost growth has exceeded that of gross domestic product by an average of roughly two percentage points and the escalation of medical malpractice litigation costs has outpaced the increase in overall U.S. tort costs. 2 Research shows the medical malpractice system induces undesirable practice patterns that results in increased cost and reduced access to care. Liability concerns have, and will continue to have, negative impact on access to care. For example, in Florida 83 percent of radiologists do not read mammograms and the top reason (24.6 percent) for not doing so was liability. Of the respondents who provide obstetric care, only 40 percent indicated that they deliver babies. Of the same population, 13 percent plan to discontinue obstetric care in the next two years, more than 90 percent of whom are under 65. Overall, the Florida Department of Health reports that 13 percent of physicians in the state planned to retire or reduce the scope of their practice in the next five years and the primary reason given (by 27.4 percent of the respondents) was liability. 3 To protect themselves against potential liability, physicians commonly practice defensive medicineordering more tests and procedures than necessary to protect themselves from
Some thoughts on the malpractice crisis
British Homoeopathic journal
Malpractice in the emergency department — review of 200 cases
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1984
Two hundred consecutive cases brought to the attention of a malpractice insurer by evidence of expected legal action were reviewed. Of these cases, 132 (66%) were attributed primarily to misdiagnosis, and 87 of these would have satisfied admission criteria. The most common error was grossly deficient examination relating to the chief complaint. Focused attention to physical examination and diagnostic skills, history taking, and minimal use of laboratory studies could have avoided the initiation of the majority of cases. [Trautlein JJ, Lambert RL, Miller J: Malpractice in the emergency department -
Malpractice Claims on Emergency Physicians: Time and Money
The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2012
e Abstract-Background: Emergency medicine, with its limited time for patient encounters, unpredictable flow, and lack of a continuing patient-physician relationship, is a particularly high-risk field with regards to the issue of medical liability. There have been limited studies on the financial and time exposure emergency physicians face when confronted with a liability suit. Objectives: Provide practicing physicians with guidance as to what can be expected if they are confronted with a medical malpractice claim, and contribute to the literature as the issue of tort reform is debated. Methods: Retrospective study of all closed malpractice claims involving emergency physicians insured by the Illinois State Medical Inter-insurance Exchange covering the 10-year period 1995 to 2004. Results: Of 450 claims, there were 200 cases served. The median incident-to-close time was 45.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 30.6 -69.9). The median expense per claim served was $14,091 (IQR $3448 -$44,363); 19.5% of cases resulted in an indemnity with a median of $220,000 (IQR $117,500 -$700,000). Cases in which an indemnity was eventually made tended to be filed 7.7 months faster (p ؍ 0.065) and took 14.1 months longer to close (p < 0.05). In cases with a payout of > $1,000,000, 80% were in the < 1-year age group. Conclusion: In this study, emergency physicians with malpractice suits can expect resolution of the case to take over 45 months after an alleged incident, and their malpractice insurer will incur over $14,000 in expenses regardless of the suit outcome. Cases involving patients aged < 1 year may incur higher indemnity payments.
U.S. Malpractice in Internal Medicine: Closed Claim Cases as Tools for Identification, Teaching and Prevention
American Medical Journal, 2013
Medical malpractice litigation as a system in the U.S. serves multiple goals, including the promotion of safer medicine and the compensation of wrongfully injured patients. However, these aims are often at odds with systems-oriented strategies needed to promote patient safety. Additionally, there is widespread doubt of the actual fairness and efficiency of malpractice litigation. Regardless of the details surrounding major tort reform, to prevent malpractice claims physicians need to practice greater awareness of the evidencebased factors that place them at higher risk for a malpractice claim. Closed claims can be used as positive teaching tools that allow physicians to recognize for themselves important preventive strategies in the area of litigation. Internal medicine may not traditionally be thought of as a comparatively high-risk specialty field. In reality, however, an analysis of physicians facing a malpractice claim annually across all specialties shows that the field of internal medicine achieved greater proportions compared to specialty fields that are more often times considered higher-risk, such as emergency medicine and anesthesiology. This article aims to help the internal medicine physician in (1) analyzing the most frequent clinical events that have led to malpractice claims by using a few showcase examples and (2) introducing how these examples of closed claim cases can serve as a learning resource to reduce medical errors that most commonly lead to litigation and thus harms to both patient and provider.
Massachusetts emergency medicine closed malpractice claims: 1988–1990
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1993
Study purpose: To describe the characteristics of malpractice claims against emergency physicians and to identify causes and potential preventability of such claims.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.