Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Medical Liability”

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
PubMed2005

[Learning from the experiences of an arbitration unit for medical liability questions].

While other countries', e.g. the United States', experience with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in medical malpractice has been disappointing, German physicians have instituted extrajudicial claims resolution as an alternative to civil litigation: Established by the Arztekammern (corporate bodies of professional self-governance) in the mid-1970s, the Schlichtungsstellen (SchlSt--claims resolution panels) offer patients and doctors, on a voluntary basis, proceedings directed toward achieving a settlement. The number of cases submitted to these panels has been constantly growing since. In 90% of cases decided upon by the panel, civil litigation was avoided. Doctors can, as exemplified by the operation of the SchlSt, tackle difficult and complex problems and solve them--without being funded or directed by outside agencies. What can be learnt from being, as a physician member, associated with a SchlSt for several years? (1) Physicians--as Eddy has pointed out--must make decisions about complex problems under difficult conditions on the basis of inadequate information. Expert testimony suffers from similar uncertainties. Decisions on individual cases cannot be improved by external and necessarily generalized ruling (disease management programs, other directives). (2) Errors and adverse events in medical care have to be accepted as principally unavoidable. Most claims heard by the panel have to do with operations and--in the non-surgical specialties--with invasive procedures. Medical tasks of high complexity, as many operative and invasive procedures indeed are, seem to have an inherent accident-proneness. Therefore decisions as to operations and invasive procedures should be weighed with utmost care. More is not always better (3) 25% of the patients filing claims with the SchlSt complain of deficient doctor-patient-communication. Failure of doctors and staff to communicate adequately with the patients and with their professional contacts plays an important role as risk factor for negligence and injury and even as cause of disputes and claims. (4) The GP, the generalist in a profession characterized by specialization, has to treat a wide spectrum of diseases, wider than any specialist. As far as can be seen, he does his job well. He needs adequate--if possible personal--contact with and support by his colleagues involved in the treatment of the same patient.

Germany↗
PubMed2002

Guidelines for expert witness testimony in medical malpractice litigation. Committee on Medical Liability. American Academy of Pediatrics.

The interests of the public and the medical profession are best served when scientifically sound and unbiased expert witness testimony is readily available to plaintiffs and defendants in medical negligence suits. As members of the physician community, as patient advocates, and as private citizens, pediatricians have ethical and professional obligations to assist in the administration of justice, particularly in matters concerning potential medical malpractice. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that the adoption of the recommendations outlined in this statement will improve the quality of medical expert witness testimony in such proceedings and thereby increase the probability of achieving equitable outcomes. Strategies to enforce ethical guidelines should be monitored for efficacy before offering policy recommendations on disciplining physicians for providing biased, false, or unscientific medical expert witness testimony.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2001

[Medical liability in gynecology and obstetrics. Analysis of 25 cases].

The authors studied 175 severe medical complaints which ended in Arbitration veredicts or expert opinions, handled by and Alternative Disputes Resolution Institution (CONAMED) between June 1996 and December 1999. The study was focused on 25 cases with complete medical records. Belonged to Gynecology area, 8 cases (32%), and 17 cases (68%) to Obstetrics. The physicians involved were ob/gyn specialists in 14 cases. Health public institutions were involved in 14 cases (56%), and private practitioners, 11 cases (44%). The main sources of unsatisfaction were injuries or technical failures during surgical procedures in 24% (6 cases) or diagnostic failures in 6 cases (24%). The outcomes were: deaths 8 (32%), amputation or another sequelae in three cases (12%), and fetus or newborns deaths or injuries in two cases (6%). The claimers asked for monetary benefits in 15 cases (60%), disclosure of medical responsibility in 8 cases (24%), and to probe murder or injuries in 3 cases (12%). The CONAMED conclusions were medical malpractice in 14 cases (56%), administrative failures in 14 cases (56%), and patient responsibility in 4 cases (16%).

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The US Medical Liability System: evidence for legislative reform.

BACKGROUND: Despite state and federal efforts to implement medical malpractice reform, there is limited evidence on which to base policy decisions. The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) offers an opportunity to evaluate the effects of previous malpractice tort reforms on malpractice payments and premiums. METHODS: For every state and the District of Columbia, we calculated the number of malpractice payments, total amount paid, and average payment from NPDB data reported from 1999 through 2001. We analyzed 44,913 claims using logistic regression to study associations between payments, physician premiums, and 10 state statutory tort reforms. RESULTS: Wide variations exist in malpractice payments among states. The reforms most associated with lower payments and premiums were total and noneconomic damage caps. Mean payments were 26% lower in states with total damage caps (196,495.34 dollars vs 265,554.50 dollars, P = .001). Mean payments were 22% less in states with noneconomic damage caps (219,225.98 dollars vs 279,849.86 dollars, P = .010). Total damage caps were associated with lower mean annual premiums, especially for obstetricians (22,371.57 dollars vs 42,728.68 dollars, P <.001). Hard noneconomic damage caps were associated with premium reductions for obstetricians (30,283.75 vs 45,740.88; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions in malpractice payments could be realized if total or noneconomic damage caps were operating nationally. Hard noneconomic damage and total damage caps could yield lower premiums. If tied to a comprehensive plan for reform, the money saved could be diverted to implement alternative approaches to patient compensation or be used to achieve other systems reform benefiting patients, employers, physicians, and hospitals.

Cost Control↗