Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8972994

Errors in otology.

J M Kartush
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Practicing medicine successfully requires that errors in diagnosis and treatment be minimized. Malpractice laws encourage litigators to ascribe all medical errors to incompetence and negligence. There are, however, many other causes of unintended outcomes. This article describes common causes of errors and suggests ways to minimize mistakes in otologic practice. Widespread dissemination of knowledge about common errors and their precursors can reduce the incidence of their occurrence. Consequently, laws should be passed to allow for a system of non-punitive, confidential reporting of errors and "near misses" that can be shared by physicians nationwide.

Explore related subjects

Diagnostic ErrorsHumansLicensureMalpracticeOtolaryngologyPublishingWorkforceJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Kartush. 1996. Errors in otology.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8972994/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

[Doctors are increasingly held liable for missed diagnosis of cancer in mass screening].

Radiologists and pathologists are increasingly subjected to litigation for alleged faults in diagnosing cancer. An important cause of this appears to be the introduction of mass screening for cancer. According to liability law, the judge must assess whether the person making the diagnosis effected his/her duty with due care. The distinction between error and incompetence cannot be judged solely on the basis of the individual case, but requires an estimation of the accuracy of the diagnosis on a population level. The traditional role of the expert witness, who is asked to judge the individual cases, needs to be reconsidered. A re-examination of slides or radiograms with prior knowledge of the outcome obtained does no justice to the original situation and an alternative procedure is therefore needed. Since the government initiates and controls population screening and the professional organisations involved in screening have committed themselves to monitoring the process and the results obtained, the general public must be better informed about the limitations of screening. Unrealistic expectations as to the benefits of screening appear to be an important motive for legal actions. It is questionable whether screening quality can be enhanced by means of the preventive effect of professional liability. Doctors and lawyers should analyse and solve this problem together.

Diagnostic Errors↗