scholarly journals A Primer to Understanding the Elements of Medical Malpractice

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (02) ◽  
pp. 117-119
Author(s):  
Gregory Q. Hill ◽  
Robert K. Ryu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

AbstractAccording to a 2017 survey of 4,000 physicians across 25 different specialties in the United States, 55% of respondents report having been sued at least once, with nearly half of them having been sued multiple times. In addition, procedural specialists are far more likely to be sued. As a procedural-driven specialty, interventional radiology (IR) practitioners are subject to these statistics. While the focus of all IR practices is providing the highest quality care safely and efficiently, medical errors and complications are unavoidable. Understanding the process of medical malpractice litigation is necessary to develop strategies on how best to avoid and mitigate the hardships of the process.

What Practitioners can Teach Academics About Tort Litigation – The Plaintiff’s Perspective in Medical Malpractice Litigation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-280
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Albro ◽  
Thomas M. Hendell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Common Causes ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
Prohibitive Cost ◽  
Paid Claims

AbstractAlthough medical errors are a leading cause of injury and death in the United States, only a small fraction of claims result in litigation, and the number of paid claims continues to decline. There are many reasons for the relatively small number of medical errors that result in medical malpractice litigation, including the prohibitive cost of procuring medical experts, caps on recovery, the long timeline of a med mal case from intake to verdict or settlement, and the outsized success rate of defendant doctors at trial. This article explores all of these topics, as well as common causes of action and notable plaintiff types.

Could Patient Engagement Promote a Health System Free From Malpractice Litigation Risk?

2018 ◽  
pp. 431-454
Author(s):  
Massimo Miglioretti ◽  
Francesca Mariani ◽  
Luca Vecchio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Engagement ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

In recent decades, medical malpractice litigation experienced a large-scale expansion in the United States as well as in Europe, involving both medical and surgical specialties. Previous studies have investigated the reasons why patients decide to sue doctors for malpractice and highlighted that adverse outcome, negative communication with doctors and seeking compensation are among the major reasons for malpractice litigation. In this chapter, patient engagement is discussed as a possible method for reducing the risks of doctors being sued for medical malpractice. The results of a first qualitative study underline how an active role for patients and their engagement in the treatment definition and execution could be a way to limit the occurrence of malpractice litigations. However, a second study noted that in Italy, many patients are still struggling to become involved in the process of their care. The authors discuss the role of professional education in promoting patient engagement in Italy.

Could Patient Engagement Promote a Health System Free From Malpractice Litigation Risk?

2016 ◽  
pp. 240-264
Author(s):  
Massimo Miglioretti ◽  
Francesca Mariani ◽  
Luca Vecchio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Engagement ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

In recent decades, medical malpractice litigation experienced a large-scale expansion in the United States as well as in Europe, involving both medical and surgical specialties. Previous studies have investigated the reasons why patients decide to sue doctors for malpractice and highlighted that adverse outcome, negative communication with doctors and seeking compensation are among the major reasons for malpractice litigation. In this chapter, patient engagement is discussed as a possible method for reducing the risks of doctors being sued for medical malpractice. The results of a first qualitative study underline how an active role for patients and their engagement in the treatment definition and execution could be a way to limit the occurrence of malpractice litigations. However, a second study noted that in Italy, many patients are still struggling to become involved in the process of their care. The authors discuss the role of professional education in promoting patient engagement in Italy.

Characterization of Medical Malpractice Litigation after Rhinoplasty in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian A Ong ◽  
Andrew Kelly ◽  
Geroline A Castillo ◽  
Michele M Carr ◽  
David A Sherris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medication Administration ◽  
Ocular Injury ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Malpractice Claims

Abstract Background Rhinoplasty is one of the most common operations performed with favorable results and high patient satisfaction. However, when complications occur or when the desired outcome is not achieved, patients may seek litigation on the premise that there was a violation in the standard of care. Knowledge of malpractice claims can inform rhinoplasty surgeons on how to minimize risk of future litigation as well as improve patient satisfaction. Objectives 1) To identify motives for seeking medical malpractice litigation after rhinoplasty; 2) To examine outcomes of malpractice litigation after rhinoplasty in the United States. Methods The Westlaw legal database was reviewed for all available court decisions related to malpractice after rhinoplasty. Data collected and analyzed included plaintiff gender, location, specialty of defendant(s), plaintiff allegation, and adjudicated case outcomes. Results Twenty-three cases were identified between 1960 and 2018, located in 12 states in the United States. Plaintiffs were 70% female. Otolaryngologists were cited in 11 cases while 12 cases involved a plastic surgeon. All cases alleged negligence. Cases involved “technical” errors (69.6%), “unsatisfactory” outcomes (39.1%), inadequate follow-up or aftercare (30.4%), issues with the informed consent process (21.7%), unexpectedly extensive surgery (8.7%), improper medication administration (4.3%), and failure to recognize symptoms (4.3%). Twenty of the 23 adjudicated cases (86.9%) were ruled in favor of the surgeon. Contributing factors in cases alleging malpractice included poor aesthetic outcome/disfigurement (60.7%), new (post-surgical) onset/persistent nasal symptoms (30.4%), postoperative pain (21.7%), orbital/ocular injury (17.4%), burns (4%), nerve damage (4%), and issues with sleep (4%). Conclusions Malpractice litigation after rhinoplasty favored the surgeon in the majority of the adjudicated cases reviewed. The most common reason for litigating was dissatisfaction with aesthetic outcomes. Rhinoplasty surgeons may mitigate possible litigation by developing a positive doctor-patient relationship, clearly understanding the patient’s surgical expectations, obtaining detailed informed consent while maintaining frequent and caring communication with the patient.

scholarly journals Lawsuits against plastic surgeons: Does locale affect incidence of claims?

2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan L Kaplan ◽  
Warren C Hammert ◽  
James E Zin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emergency Room ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Absolute Number ◽  
Malpractice Claims ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Medical Malpractice Claims ◽  
Geographical Locations

Background Physicians continue to practice in a very litigious environment. Some physicians try to mitigate their exposure to lawsuits by avoiding geographical locations known for their high incidence of medical malpractice claims. Not only are certain areas of the United States known to have a higher incidence of litigation, but it is also assumed that certain areas of the hospital incur a greater liability. There seems to be a medicolegal dogma suggesting a higher percentage of malpractice claims coming from patients seen in the emergency room (ER), as well as higher settlements for ER claims. Objective To determine if there is any validity to the dogma that a higher percentage of malpractice claims arise from the ER. Methods An analysis of common plastic surgery consults that result in malpractice claims was performed. The location where the basis for the lawsuit arose – the ER, office (clinic) or the operating room (OR) – was evaluated. The value of the indemnity paid and whether its value increased or decreased based on the location of the misadventure was evaluated. Results According to the data, which represented 60% of American physicians, there was a larger absolute number of malpractice claims arising from the OR, not the ER. However, the highest average indemnity was paid for cases involving amputations when the misadventure originated in the ER. Conclusions The dogma that a greater percentage of lawsuits come from incidents arising in the ER is not supported. However, depending on the patient's injury and diagnosis, a lawsuit from the ER can be more costly than one from the OR.

Narrowing the mindware gap in medicine

Diagnosis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pat Croskerry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cognitive Performance ◽  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Medical Error ◽  
Causes Of Death ◽  
The United States ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Medical Educators ◽  
High Degree

Abstract Medical error is now recognized as one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Of the medical errors, diagnostic failure appears to be the dominant contributor, failing in a significant number of cases, and associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. One of the significant contributors to diagnostic failure is the cognitive performance of the provider, how they think and decide about the process of diagnosis. This thinking deficit in clinical reasoning, referred to as a mindware gap, deserves the attention of medical educators. A variety of specific approaches are outlined here that have the potential to close the gap.

scholarly journals Identification and Management of Sepsis in the Interventional Radiology Patient

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Murtha ◽  
Vinit Khanna ◽  
Talia Sasson ◽  
Devang Butani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
The United States ◽  
Clinical Aspects ◽  
Inhospital Mortality ◽  
United States Population ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Sepsis is frequently encountered in the hospital setting and can be community-acquired, health-care-associated, or hospital-acquired. The annual incidence of sepsis in the United States population ranges from 300 to 1031 per 100,000 and is increasing by 13% annually. There is an associated inhospital mortality of 10% for sepsis and >40% for septic shock. Interventional radiology is frequently called on to treat patients with sepsis, and in rarer circumstances, interventional radiologists themselves may cause sepsis. Thus, it is essential for interventional radiologists to be able to identify and manage septic patients to reduce sepsis-related morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this paper is to outline procedures most likely to cause sepsis and delineate important clinical aspects of identifying and managing septic patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document