Medicolegal Considerations Regarding Steroid Use in Otolaryngology: A Review of the Literature

Objective: To review the literature on corticosteroid use and provide recommendations on patient counseling and/or consent to promote judicious prescribing and reduce the incidence of corticosteroid-related lawsuits. Method: A conventional literature search of PubMed on corticosteroid-related medicolegal cases was undertaken. Search terms included “medicolegal,” “otolaryngology,” and “adrenocorticosteroids.” A medical subjects headings search with the keywords “adrenal cortex hormones” and “jurisprudence” was also performed. Results: Corticosteroids have been reported as the third most frequent medication involved in malpractice claims, oftentimes leading to disproportionately costly payments. The most common specialties found to be involved in corticosteroid related medicolegal cases included dermatology (12%), primary care (10%), and neurologists or neurosurgeons (6%). The most common complications encountered were avascular necrosis (39%), changes in mood (16%), infection (14%), and vision changes (14%). Only a few cases corticosteroid-related litigation regarding otolaryngologists were identified. More frequent causes for otolaryngology claims were intraoperative complications, deficits in diagnoses, and failures or delays in treatment. Three medicolegal pitfalls regarding corticosteroid use were identified from this review included: (1) insufficient advising, (2) lack of or incomplete informed consent, and (3) the significance of the patient-physician relationship. Conclusion: Despite the scarcity of corticosteroid-related medicolegal literature pertaining to otolaryngologists, corticosteroids are one of the most widely prescribed medications in the field of otolaryngology and have been shown to have a high rate of medical malpractice claims in medicine. Counseling and consenting the patient, as well as developing a strong physician-patient relationship, are integral processes in addressing any adverse effects occurring during therapy, and may also help to decrease the incidence and success of litigation against otolaryngologists.

Rates and Characteristics of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Hospitalists

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists practice in high-stakes and litigious settings. However, little data exist about the malpractice claims risk faced by hospitalists. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the rates and characteristics of malpractice claims against hospitalists. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An analysis was performed of malpractice claims against hospitalists, as well as against select other specialties, using data from a malpractice claims database that includes approximately 31% of US malpractice claims. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For malpractice claims against hospitalists (n = 1,216) and comparator specialties (n = 18,644): claims rates (using a data subset), percentage of claims paid, median indemnity payment amounts, allegation types, and injury severity. RESULTS: Hospitalists had an annual malpractice claims rate of 1.95 claims per 100 physician-years, similar to that of nonhospitalist general internal medicine physicians (1.92 claims per 100 physician-years), and significantly greater than that of internal medicine subspecialists (1.30 claims per 100 physician-years) (P < .001). Claims rates for hospitalists nonsignificantly increased during the study period (2009-2018), whereas claims rates for four of the five other specialties examined significantly decreased over this period. The median indemnity payment for hospitalist claims was $231,454 (interquartile range, $100,000-$503,015), significantly higher than the amounts for all the other specialties except neurosurgery. The greatest predictor of a hospitalist case closing with payment (compared with no payment) was an error in clinical judgment as a contributing factor, with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.01 (95% CI, 3.37-7.45). CONCLUSION: During the study period, hospitalist claims rates did not drop, whereas they fell for other specialties. Hospitalists’ claims had relatively high injury severity and median indemnity payment amounts. The malpractice environment for hospitalists is becoming less favorable.

A Five-Year Survey for Plastic Surgery Malpractice Claims in Rome, Italy

(1) Introduction: Medical malpractice claims against both health institutions and physicians are a crucial topic in Italy, as well as in other countries, particularly regarding civil proceedings. Our study reports an analysis of all of the malpractice judgments concerning plastic surgery decided in the Civil Court of Rome between 2012 and 2016. (2) Methods: the database of the Observatory Project on Medical Responsibility (ORMe) was analyzed, which collects all of the judgments of the Civil Court of Rome, that is, the first instance district court. Therefore, neither the jurisprudence of the second level court nor that of the Supreme Court was taken into account. (3) Results: 144 judgments concerning plastic surgery were delivered in the five-year period of 2012–2016 (corresponding to 10.6% of total professional liability verdicts of the Civil Court of Rome in the same period). In 101/144 cases (70.14%), the claim was accepted. A total of €4,727,579.00 was paid in compensation for plastic surgery malpractice claims, with a range from a minimum amount of €1555.96 to a maximum amount of €1,425,155.00 and an average compensation of €46,807.71 per claim that was significantly lower compared to other surgical disciplines. (4) Conclusions: Our data confirm that the analyzed branch has a high litigation rate, with a prevalence of convictions for cosmetic procedures over reconstructive ones, both for malpractice and for violation of the informed consent. Plastic surgery is also confirmed among those branches in which the professionals are more frequently sued compared to health institutions.

Characteristics of the medical malpractice cases against orthopedists in China between 2016 and 2017

Background This study aimed to identify the most frequent reasons for orthopedic medical malpractice, gain insight into the related patient demographics and clinical characteristics, and identify the independent factors associated with it. Methods We collected and analyzed the demographic and injury characteristics, hospital levels and treatments, medical errors, and orthopedist’s degree of responsibility for the patients who were subject to orthopedic medical malpractice at our institution. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with the orthopedist’s degree of responsibility in the medical malpractice cases. Results We included 1922 cases of medical malpractice in the final analysis. There were 1195 and 727 men and women, respectively (62.2% and 37.8%, respectively). Of the total patients, 1810, 1038, 1558, 1441, and 414 patients (94.2%, 54.0%, 81.1%, 75.0%, and 21.5%, respectively) were inpatients, had closed injuries, underwent surgery, were trauma cases, and had preoperative comorbidities, respectively. Most medical malpractice cases were in patients with fractures and spinal degenerative disease (1229 and 253 cases; 63.9% and 13.2%, respectively), and occurred in city-level hospitals (1006 cases, 52.3%), which were located in the eastern part of china (1001, 52.1%), including Jiangsu and Zhejiang (279 and 233 cases, 14.52% and 52.1%, respectively). Between 2016 and 2017, the orthopedist’s degree of responsibility in medical malpractice claims were deemed as full, primary, equal, secondary, and minor in 135, 654, 77, 716, and 340 orthopedists (7.0%, 34.0%, 4.0%, 37.3%, and 17.7%). Most medical errors made by orthopedists in cases of medical malpractice were related to failure to supervise or monitor cases, improper performance of procedures, and failure to instruct or communicate with the patient (736, 716, and 423 cases; 38.3%, 37.3%, and 22.0%, respectively). The multivariate analysis found that patients with preoperative comorbidities, who sustained humerus injuries, who were aged ≥65 years, who were treated by doctors who failed to supervise or monitor them, and who were treated at the provincial and city level hospitals were more likely to claim that the orthopedist bore a serious degree of responsibility in the medical malpractice case. Conclusions Our results provide detailed information on the plaintiff demographics, clinical characteristics, and factors associated with medical malpractice. Medical malpractice is related to poor treatment outcomes. The first preventative measure that is required is a comprehensive improvement in the medical staff quality, mainly through medical ethics cultivation, and professional ability and technique training. Additionally, failure to supervise or monitor cases was the leading cause of medical malpractice and one of the factors that led to orthopedists bearing an equal and higher responsibility for medical malpractice. Orthopedists should improve patient supervision, especially when treating older patients and those with preoperative comorbidities and humerus injuries.