Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MALPRACTICE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

The impact of the medical malpractice crisis on OB-GYNs and patients in southern New Jersey.

The results of this study indicate that the current medical malpractice crisis has created significant insurance affordability and accessibility problems for OB-GYNs in southern New Jersey. Even more important is the result that shows this crisis as beginning to have a very real impact on patient access to care. The average cost for malpractice coverage per physician increased from $34,616.67 in 2000 to $78,818.18 in 2003. This represents a 128% increase in just four years. As dramatic as these premium increases appear, the fact that many physicians have had to reduce their coverage in order to afford any malpractice coverage at all has not yet been taken into account. The increase in premiums particularly affects solo practitioners, such as those practicing in the more rural areas of southern New Jersey, because they are unable to take advantage of the economies of scale that larger practices enjoy. It is also the case that premium increases are even higher for high-risk subspecialties, such as maternal and fetal medicine. Certified nurse midwives are just beginning to see significant increases in their premiums as well. Fourteen point three percent of practices got quotes from three carriers this year, and 12.2% of practices got more than three quotes. This may indicate that there are physicians who are unable to find affordable coverage. More than one quarter of OB-GYN practices (26.5%) reported that their current carrier dropped one or more of the physicians in their practice during the most recent renewal period. Close to half of the practices (49%) that responded to the survey indicated that they came across at least one carrier who refused to provide a quote for liability coverage, while 14% of the practices indicated that more than three carriers refused to provide a quote. This indicates a significant problem with access to coverage. The current malpractice crisis already has had an impact on the way in which physicians practice medicine. Most significant, thirteen practices in the region indicated that at least one of their physicians had stopped delivering babies, two additional practices indicated that they had ceased delivering or caring for high-risk babies, and six practices indicated that at least one of their physicians had ceased performing surgical procedures. There are even more strategies that physicians in southern New Jersey are considering for the near future. Clearly, physicians believe that patient access to care is already a problem in southern New Jersey. If premiums do not stabilize in the very near future, there is every indication that southern New Jersey will have a severe access to care issue for its obstetrical patient population. Unfortunately, a recent report on the nation's medical malpractice insurance crisis predicts at least two more years of continuing financial problems for medical malpractice insurers. Despite the fact that New Jersey's state legislators ended their session without enacting any new tort reform laws, physicians across the state continue to apply pressure for passage of a bill to help the current medical liability crisis. Physicians plan a new round of lobbying and demonstrations beginning October 7, 2003.

Career Mobility↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Will family physicians really return to obstetrics if malpractice insurance premiums decline?

BACKGROUND: The loss of family physicians as obstetrics providers during the last decade has had a significant impact on access to obstetric services, especially for rural populations. The expense of malpractice premiums has been cited often as a reason for physicians' discontinuation of this service. METHODS: Seventy-six family physicians in northern California who recently discontinued obstetrics were surveyed regarding their decisions related to obstetric practice. Those physicians who indicated that a decrease in malpractice premiums would allow them to consider resuming obstetrics were resurveyed by telephone the following year. This telephone survey occurred following a 25 percent decrease in malpractice premiums for obstetrics by the major malpractice insurance carrier for family physicians practicing obstetrics in the study area. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 76 physicians in the original survey who had recently discontinued obstetrics stated they would consider resuming if conditions changed. Twenty-six (90 percent) of these physicians indicated that malpractice premiums needed to change for them to consider resuming obstetrics. Following the reduction in premiums, none of these physicians reported plans to resume obstetrics or even a likelihood that they would be resuming obstetrics. CONCLUSION: This study found that family physicians who discontinued obstetrics and cited malpractice premiums as a barrier to resuming obstetrics are unlikely to resume when rates decline. This finding suggests that other issues might be equally or more important in this decision.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

The malpractice claims experience of physicians investigated for inappropriate prescribing.

Inappropriate prescribing of controlled substances, primarily opiates and benzodiazepines, is the most common complaint brought before the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. We describe the malpractice claims experience of 120 physicians previously investigated by the Oregon board for inappropriate prescribing. These physicians were matched with a comparison group by age, specialty, and practice location. We found that a mean of one malpractice claim had been filed against each physician in our study, with the specialties of obstetrics and gynecology, neurosurgery, and orthopedics having the most claims. A significantly higher mean number of malpractice claims had been filed against 31 physicians disciplined by the board. Our study suggests a role for state regulatory boards in the malpractice area. We propose that such bodies do practice reviews based on the convergence of two events, a disciplinary action such as those described in this article and the filing of more than one malpractice claim against a physician. Further research is needed on inappropriate prescribing by physicians and its possible association with malpractice.

Drug Prescriptions↗
PubMed1986

Medical malpractice litigation: do the British have a better remedy?

Medical malpractice claims are filed nearly ten times more frequently in America than they are in Great Britain. British patients generally adopt a less adversarial stance toward medical malpractice than do American patients. This Article examines the British malpractice system, as compared with the American system, and explores the differences between the two, in terms of costs and fees, liability rules, statutory provisions, and judicial attitudes toward malpractice litigation. The Article also discusses British social and institutional factors, such as the "taint" of litigation and the National Health Service, and evaluates how these factors affect British malpractice litigation. The Article presents the alternative forums available to British patients in seeking satisfaction for their medical service complaints. The Article concludes with an evaluation of how these factors achieve the three societal objectives of malpractice litigation: reparation, emotional vindication and deterrence.

Attitude↗
PubMed1995

Malpractice in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Malpractice actions arising from gastrointestinal endoscopic care most frequently allege improper performance of the procedure and errors in diagnosis. Virtually all claims alleging an iatrogenic injury involve perforation, which in principle should be defensible if proper informed consent is documented. Allegations of errors in diagnosis primarily pertain to missed colon cancer. The relative malpractice claim risk of sigmoidoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and colonoscopy are similar. This article summarizes the basic elements of a malpractice suit, the recent history of medical malpractice, and the relationships between iatrogenic patient injury and malpractice suits. The allegations in malpractice claims against endoscopists are examined.

Endoscopy, Digestive System↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The relationship between malpractice claims history and subsequent obstetric care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between prior malpractice claims experience and the quality of clinical obstetric care. DESIGN: Historical cohort study of obstetricians, classified by their prior malpractice claims experience, with blinded review of medical records from their practices 5 to 10 years later. SETTING: Florida obstetricians who lost, settled, or defended malpractice claims between 1977 and 1983 and who were still practicing obstetrics in 1987. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective and subjective assessment of quality of clinical care of patients attended by obstetricians with different histories of malpractice claims. RESULTS: No differences were found in any of the objective or subjective measures of the quality of clinical care provided to patients of obstetricians who were classified into one of four groups according to their prior claims history. CONCLUSIONS: No relationship was found between prior malpractice claims experience and the technical quality of practice by Florida obstetricians. Strategies that attempt to identify physicians at risk for future clinical errors by using data on prior malpractice claims (such as the National Practitioner Data Bank) may be misjudging the likelihood that substandard clinical care will be provided by physicians with prior claims.

Cohort Studies↗
PubMed2001

The problems of medical malpractice litigation in Japan: the significant factors responsible for the tendency of patients to avoid litigation.

The present research has demonstrated that the Japanese tendency to avoid medical malpractice litigation can be ascribed to Japan's medical malpractice litigation system, and not the Japanese legal consciousness. From this standpoint, the present research has made clear the specific problem areas of the litigation system by looking at all cases from the last 10 years in the main district courts. The total average time taken for medical malpractice litigation is 3.0 years - much longer than the average time for normal litigation. Furthermore, the average amount of money needed to bring a medical malpractice complaint was 2,200,000 yen, far too much for the patient's family to bear. We have also demonstrated to what extent the amount is inversely related to the patient's age. Naturally, it is possible to bring a case without reliance on a lawyer, but in 90.0% of cases a lawyer was employed, and the success rate of litigants that had not employed a lawyer was 0%. Through the above discussion, we have show the present situation regarding time and costs in medical malpractice litigation, and it is suggested that these are the important reasons why medical malpractice disputants demonstrate a tendency to avoid litigation.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1979

Patient Compensation Funds: legislative responses to the medical malpractice crisis.

Fifteen states have created Patient Compensation Funds in response to the increased cost and reduced availability of medical malpractice insurance associated with the so-called "medical malpractice crisis." Patient Compensation Fund statutes limit health care providers' liability to a specified amount, and establish state-administered funds to compensate victorious malpractice plaintiffs for damage awards in excess of that amount. This Note examines the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism, evaluates its effectiveness as a compensation system for malpractice victims, and recommends particular provisions that might enhance its effectiveness. The Note concludes that the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism is an effective means of increasing the availability and of reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and should be adopted by other states experiencing a "medical malpractice crisis."

Humans↗
PubMed2002

Analysis of medication-related malpractice claims: causes, preventability, and costs.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) may lead to serious injury and may result in malpractice claims. While ADEs resulting in claims are not representative of all ADEs, such data provide a useful resource for studying ADEs. Therefore, we conducted a review of medication-related malpractice claims to study their frequency, nature, and costs and to assess the human factor failures associated with preventable ADEs. We also assessed the potential benefits of proved effective ADE prevention strategies on ADE claims prevention. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a New England malpractice insurance company claims records from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1999. Cases were electronically screened for possible ADEs and followed up by independent review of abstracts by 2 physician reviewers (T.K.G. and R.K.). Additional in-depth claims file reviews identified potential human factor failures associated with ADEs. RESULTS: Adverse drug events represented 6.3% (129/2040) of claims. Adverse drug events were judged preventable in 73% (n = 94) of the cases and were nearly evenly divided between outpatient and inpatient settings. The most frequently involved medication classes were antibiotics, antidepressants or antipsychotics, cardiovascular drugs, and anticoagulants. Among these ADEs, 46% were life threatening or fatal. System deficiencies and performance errors were the most frequent cause of preventable ADEs. The mean costs of defending malpractice claims due to ADEs were comparable for nonpreventable inpatient and outpatient ADEs and preventable outpatient ADEs (mean, $64,700-74,200), but costs were considerably greater for preventable inpatient ADEs (mean, $376,500). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse drug events associated with malpractice claims were often severe, costly, and preventable, and about half occurred in outpatients. Many interventions could potentially have prevented ADEs, with error proofing and process standardization covering the greatest proportion of events.

Health Care Costs↗
PubMed2001

Medical malpractice and legal resolution systems in Japan.

Medical malpractice claims and dispute resolution systems have been examined in Western societies for their impact on the quality of care and efficient compensation for injured patients. However, little is known about the Japanese malpractice environment because claim information has been closely guarded. Based on data from the Japanese Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (formerly the Ministry of Health and Welfare), and the Japan Medical Association (JMA), which provides malpractice insurance to 43.5% of Japan's 250 000 physicians, we review Japanese malpractice liability systems and the frequency of claims during the last 30 years. Annual premiums for physician professional liability insurance are relatively low (454 dollars-491 dollars). Although the frequency of claims in Japan is lower than that reported in the United States, England, and Germany, the number of claims is increasing in Japan. According to publicly available data from the Japanese Supreme Court, the annual number of medical malpractice suits filed in district courts has increased from 102 in 1970 to 629 in 1998 (from 0.09 to 0.25 per 100 physicians). The proportion of awards greater than 89 dollars 300 increased from 13.6% in 1976 to 65.4% in 1987. Among JMA members, claims increased 31% from 1987 to 1999, but the frequency of claims has remained at approximately 0.3 per 100 JMA members. The JMA's professional liability program offers a nonbinding out-of-court review of claims that is faster and less expensive than judicial resolution (a few months with no attorney required vs 35 months and attorney fees), but is a poor means of deterrence or discipline. Since JMA data represent only 43.5% of Japanese physicians, generalizations cannot be made about all Japanese physicians and institutions. The lack of data on all claims hinders adequate evaluation of dispute resolution methods, development of appropriate risk management activities, and proactive education for Japanese physicians.

Insurance, Liability↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Medical malpractice in the age of technology: how specialty societies can make a difference.

In the United States, medical malpractice litigation, and the rising cost of malpractice insurance, is a crisis that threatens to restrict patient access to high-risk services, especially obstetrics and certain surgical procedures. Radiation Oncology, though a small specialty, is very technologically oriented. Because the history of product liability and malpractice litigation in this country parallels the technologic revolution, practitioners of this specialty are clearly at risk for litigation. Because legislative relief is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future, many specialty societies have assumed the responsibility for devising means to protect members from frivolous law suits, without compromising a patient's right to due process. To date, Radiation Oncology societies have not taken a leadership role in this movement, preferring instead to cede this responsibility to the American College of Radiology. Opportunities exist for specialty societies to define standards of care and establish guidelines for expert witness testimony. To date, the courts have been supportive of these efforts. Herein, we summarize some of the salient issues of the malpractice crisis facing Radiation Oncology and offer suggestions for change within the specialty to better address the malpractice problem.

Brachytherapy↗
PubMed2006

Medical malpractice in urology, 1985 to 2004: 469 consecutive cases closed with indemnity payment.

PURPOSE: Malpractice premiums have increased by up to 57% for urologists in the last 3 years, for which the reasons are not clearly reported. We sought to better understand factors contributing to the current medical malpractice crisis in urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Working with the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company of New York State we evaluated malpractice claims in urology that were closed with indemnity payment between 1985 and 2004. Individual claims were assessed for the purported negligent act, the procedure when applicable and the expense incurred. We also evaluated the impact of new technologies, eg laparoscopic nephrectomy, on reported claims. RESULTS: A total of 469 urology malpractice claims were closed with indemnity payment during the period evaluated for a total loss indemnity of Dollars 99,335,431. The number of files closed with indemnity payment yearly remained relatively constant at an average of 22 claims. The average indemnity payment increased each year and after correcting for inflation a 191% increase was observed for the period evaluated. The greatest number of claims was related to postoperative events (total of 101), followed by intraoperative events (96), failure to diagnose a given condition (60), medication administration error (21) and a foreign body left following surgery (20). In the area of new technologies laparoscopic surgery accounted for 4 claims and transurethral needle ablation accounted for 1. Vasectomy accounted for 8 claims. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study surgical procedures were the greatest generator of claims with the most common being oncological. Emerging and new technologies, eg laparoscopy and robotics, did not account for the increase in indemnity payments observed to date. Only further investigation will determine whether this is secondary to a lag time in the closure of suits related to these emerging technologies or to a lack of such suits. The actual number of claims closed with indemnity payment yearly remained relatively constant. However, the indemnity payment per claim far outpaced that expected for inflation. The observed increase in indemnity payment per claim would appear to be a significant contributing factor to the current malpractice crisis in urology.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates.

A longstanding issue in the health care industry is whether physicians' malpractice fears lead to defensive medicine. We use national birth certificate data from 1990 through 1992 to conduct a county fixed-effects analysis of the impact of malpractice claims risk on cesarean-section rates and infant health. Malpractice claims risk is measured by obstetricians' malpractice premiums. The study provides evidence that physicians practice defensive medicine in obstetrics but that the impact of increased cesarean sections that results from malpractice fears on total obstetric care costs is small. The study also finds that physicians' defensive response varies with the socioeconomic status of the mother.

Cesarean Section↗
PubMed2003

Standard of care and liability in medical malpractice litigation in Japan.

Although the incidence of medical malpractice litigation is increasing in Japan, it remains unclear whether medical malpractice litigation gives doctors and hospitals, an economic incentive to provide high-quality medical care by requiring that they compensate patients for harm caused by negligence. Therefore, to evaluate whether the medical malpractice litigation system contributes to the delivery of high-quality medical care, we first analyzed the decisions made in medical malpractice cases between 1986 and 1998 in ten district courts (n=421). We found the following results: (1) the probability that patients received compensation and the amount of compensation received, increased with the level of negligence, for all injury severity levels; (2) the significant predictors that a case would be decided in favor of the patient were the patient's legal basis (P=0.00) and the severity of injury (P=0.02). Although, it seems that Japanese medical malpractice litigation gives doctors an economic incentive to avoid delivering substandard medical care, since both the severity of injury and negligence were significant predictors, medical litigation in Japan might in fact corrupt the compensation process by creating an adversarial atmosphere.

Compensation and Redress↗
PubMed2000

Malpractice occurrence in emergency medicine: does residency training make a difference?

We evaluated the effects of Emergency Medicine (EM) residency training, EM board certification, and physician experience on the occurrence of malpractice claims and indemnity payments. This was a retrospective review of closed malpractice claims from a single insurer. Outcome measures included the occurrence of claims resulting in indemnity, indemnity amounts, and defense costs. Differences in the outcome measures were compared based on: EM residency training, EM board certification, EM residency training versus other residency training, and physician experience using both univariate and multivariate analyses. There were 428 closed EM claims with indemnity paid in 81 (18.9%). Indemnity was paid in 22. 4% of closed claims against non-EM residency-trained physicians, and in only 13.3% against EM residency-trained physicians (p = 0.04). The total indemnity was $6,214,475. Non-EM trained physicians accounted for $4,440,951 (71.5%), EM residency-trained physicians accounted for $1,773,524 (28.5%). The average indemnity was $76,721 and the average defense cost was $17,775. There were no significant differences in the mean indemnity paid per closed claim or the mean cost to defend a closed claim when comparing EM-trained and non-EM residency-trained physicians. The total cost (indemnity + defense costs) per physician-year of malpractice coverage was $4,905 for non-EM residency-trained physicians and $2,212 for EM residency-trained physicians. EM residency-trained physicians account for significantly less malpractice indemnity than non-EM residency-trained physicians. This difference is not due to differences in the average indemnity but is due to significantly fewer closed claims against EM residency-trained physicians with indemnity paid. This results in a cost per physician-year of malpractice coverage for non-EM residency-trained physicians that is over twice that of EM residency-trained physicians.

Certification↗
PubMed1990

The malpractice morass and practice activities of orthodontists.

This study examined the association between malpractice, measured by perception and experience scores, and practice activities of orthodontists. Data from 184 Florida orthodontists were obtained in the form of continuous/ordinal responses to survey questions in five areas: demographic, work load, personality, perception of the malpractice environment, and practice activities (malpractice experience, record taking, disclosure, and rapport). Mutually exclusive recency categories were selected on the basis of when an activity was last performed. Descriptive statistics and plots of the data were examined. A malpractice experience score for each respondent was determined by means of factor analysis procedures on the activity question responses. The association between perception/experience scores and responses to activity, demographic, work load, and personality questions were examined with the use of stepwise multiple regression procedures. The results indicated that practice activities, in the areas of record taking and doctor-patient rapport, were moderately associated with both experience scores (R2 = 0.47, p = 0.08) and perception scores (R2 = 0.29, p less than 0.06). Perception of the malpractice environment was associated with practice activities of orthodontists but to a lesser extent than active experiences in that environment were.

Dental Records↗
PubMed1999

Does the location of the surgery or the specialty of the physician affect malpractice claims in liposuction?

BACKGROUND: There is increasing national dialogue on who should perform liposuction and where it should be performed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the location of liposuction surgery and the specialty of the physician on the incidence of malpractice claims. METHODS: Physicians Insurance Association of America malpractice data from 1995-1997 was analyzed. RESULTS: Hospital-based liposuction had more than 3 times the rate of malpractice settlements than office-based liposuction. Dermatologists accounted for less than 1% of malpractice claim settlements in liposuction. CONCLUSION: Dermatologic liposuction education has emphasized small volume cases performed under local anesthesia using the tumescent technique. The safety of this approach appears to be validated in terms of decreased malpractice settlements.

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗
PubMed2002

Physician surveys to assess customary care in medical malpractice cases.

OBJECTIVE: Physician experts hired and prepared by the litigants provide most information on standard of care for medical malpractice cases. Since this information may not be objective or accurate, we examined the feasibility and potential value of surveying community physicians to assess standard of care. DESIGN: Seven physician surveys of mutually exclusive groups of randomly selected physicians. SETTING: Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: Community and academic primary care physicians and relevant specialists. INTERVENTIONS: Included in each survey was a case vignette of a primary care malpractice case and key quotes from medical experts on each side of the case. Surveyed physicians were asked whether the patient should have been referred to a specialist for additional evaluation. The 7 case vignettes included 3 closed medical malpractice cases, 3 modifications of these cases, and 1 active case. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of 350 community primary care physicians and 51% of 216 community specialists completed the questionnaire. For 3 closed cases, 47%, 78%, and 88% of primary care physician respondents reported that they would have made a different referral decision than the defendant. Referral percentages were minimally affected by modifying patient outcome but substantially changed by modifying patient presentation. Most physicians, even those whose referral decisions were unusual, assumed that other physicians would make similar referral decisions. For each case, at least 65% of the primary care physicians disagreed with the testimony of one of the expert witnesses. In the active case, the response rate was high (71%), and the respondents did not withhold criticism of the defendant doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Randomly selected peer physicians are willing to participate in surveys of medical malpractice cases. The surveys can be used to construct the distribution of physician self-reported practice relevant to a particular malpractice case. This distribution may provide more information about customary practice or standard of care than the opinion of a single physician expert.

Expert Testimony↗