Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2231036

Expert testimony based on decision analysis: a malpractice case report.

S S Weir·P Curtis·R A McNutt
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Expert testimony in malpractice cases is often subjective and biased. Decision-analytic techniques might provide an objective basis for such testimony. DESIGN: Case report. This article reports the case of a patient with chest pain that resulted in a malpractice suit alleging a delay in diagnosis of coronary artery disease. SETTING: The case occurred in a private practice; the expert witnesses and the decision analysis originated from a university teaching hospital. METHODS: A decision tree and threshold analysis were used to define the thresholds of disease probability at which either testing or treatment should be implemented. The expert testimony of two witnesses that exercise stress testing was the standard of care was compared with the results of the decision analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Decision analysis supported the view that cardiac catheterization would have been the more appropriate test. CONCLUSIONS: Techniques of decision analysis provide a structured and quantitative basis for empirical judgment and may help to minimize current problems with expert testimony.

Explore related subjects

Chest PainCoronary DiseaseDecision Support TechniquesDecision TreesExpert TestimonyHumansMaleMalpracticeMiddle AgedJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S S Weir, P Curtis, R A McNutt. Expert testimony based on decision analysis: a malpractice case report.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02599427

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Impact of a negative prior stress test on emergency physician disposition decision in ED patients with chest pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: Many emergency department (ED) patients with potential acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have prior visits and prior cardiac testing; however, the effect of knowledge of prior testing on the emergency physician disposition decision making is not known. We studied the impact of prior noninvasive testing (ie, stress testing) for myocardial ischemia on disposition decision making in ED patients with potential ACS. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of ED patients with chest pain who received an electrocardiogram for potential ACS. Data included demographics, medical history, stress test history, and TIMI risk score. Patients were followed in-house; 30-day telephone interviews were performed for follow-up. Main outcomes were ED disposition (admit/discharge) and a composite of 30-day death, acute myocardial infarction, and revascularization stratified on the basis of prior stress testing known at the time of presentation. Standard statistical techniques were used with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: There were 1853 patients enrolled and 97% had follow-up. Patients had a mean age of 53 +/- 14 years; 60% were women, 67% were black. There were 1491 (79%) patients without a prior stress test, 291 (16%) had a normal prior stress test result, and 89 (5%) had an abnormal prior stress test result. Admission rates were 92% (95% CI, 87%-98%) for patients with a prior abnormal stress test, 73% (95% CI, 67%-78%) for patients with a normal prior stress test, and 70% (95% CI, 67%-72%) for patients without a prior stress test. Adverse outcomes were the highest among patients with prior abnormal stress test but did not differ significantly between patients with no prior stress test and patients with prior normal stress test (10.1% [95% CI, 3.6-16.7%] vs 5.2% [95% CI, 4.1-6.4%] vs 4.8% [95% CI, 2.4-7.3%]). CONCLUSION: Patients without prior stress tests and patients with prior normal stress tests were admitted for potential ACS at the same rate and had the same 30-day cardiovascular event rates. This suggests that prior stress testing does not affect subsequent disposition decisions. Perhaps cardiac catheterization or computed tomography coronary angiograms would have more of an impact on subsequent visits, making them potentially more cost-effective in the low-risk patient.

Chest Pain↗
PubMed2007

Hypothesis: chest pain in primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

The mechanism of chest pain in spontaneous pneumothorax has never been discussed in the literature. It is proposed that this is due to acute parietal pleural irritation secondary to leakage of inflammatory material following bleb rupture, rather than the presence of interpleural air.

Chest Pain↗