Systematic review of the factors and the key indicators that identify doctors at risk of complaints, malpractice claims or impaired performance

ObjectiveTo identify the risk factors associated with complaints, malpractice claims and impaired performance in medical practitioners.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesOvid-Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 2011 until March 2020. Reference lists and Google were also handsearched.ResultsSixty-seven peer-reviewed papers and three grey literature publications from 2011 to March 2020 were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers. Twenty-three key factors identified, which were categorised as demographic or workplace related. Gender, age, years spent in practice and greater number of patient lists were associated with higher risk of malpractice claim or complaint. Risk factors associated with physician impaired performance included substance abuse and burn-out.ConclusionsIt is likely that risk factors are interdependent with no single factor as a strong predictor of a doctor’s risk to the public. Risk factors for malpractice claim or complaint are likely to be country specific due to differences in governance structures, processes and funding. Risk factors for impaired performance are likely to be specialty specific due to differences in work culture and access to substances. New ways of supporting doctors might be developed, using risk factor data to reduce adverse events and patient harm.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42020182045.

Does state malpractice environment affect outcomes following spinal fusions? A robust statistical and machine learning analysis of 549,775 discharges following spinal fusion surgery in the United States

OBJECTIVESpine surgery is especially susceptible to malpractice claims. Critics of the US medical liability system argue that it drives up costs, whereas proponents argue it deters negligence. Here, the authors study the relationship between malpractice claim density and outcomes.METHODSThe following methods were used: 1) the National Practitioner Data Bank was used to determine the number of malpractice claims per 100 physicians, by state, between 2005 and 2010; 2) the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for spinal fusion patients; and 3) the Area Resource File was queried to determine the density of physicians, by state. States were categorized into 4 quartiles regarding the frequency of malpractice claims per 100 physicians. To evaluate the association between malpractice claims and death, discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and total costs, an inverse-probability-weighted regression-adjustment estimator was used. The authors controlled for patient and hospital characteristics. Covariates were used to train machine learning models to predict death, discharge disposition not to home, LOS, and total costs.RESULTSOverall, 549,775 discharges following spinal fusions were identified, with 495,640 yielding state-level information about medical malpractice claim frequency per 100 physicians. Of these, 124,425 (25.1%), 132,613 (26.8%), 130,929 (26.4%), and 107,673 (21.7%) were from the lowest, second-lowest, second-highest, and highest quartile states, respectively, for malpractice claims per 100 physicians. Compared to the states with the fewest claims (lowest quartile), surgeries in states with the most claims (highest quartile) showed a statistically significantly higher odds of a nonhome discharge (OR 1.169, 95% CI 1.139–1.200), longer LOS (mean difference 0.304, 95% CI 0.256–0.352), and higher total charges (mean difference [log scale] 0.288, 95% CI 0.281–0.295) with no significant associations for mortality. For the machine learning models—which included medical malpractice claim density as a covariate—the areas under the curve for death and discharge disposition were 0.94 and 0.87, and the R2 values for LOS and total charge were 0.55 and 0.60, respectively.CONCLUSIONSSpinal fusion procedures from states with a higher frequency of malpractice claims were associated with an increased odds of nonhome discharge, longer LOS, and higher total charges. This suggests that medicolegal climate may potentially alter practice patterns for a given spine surgeon and may have important implications for medical liability reform. Machine learning models that included medical malpractice claim density as a feature were satisfactory in prediction and may be helpful for patients, surgeons, hospitals, and payers.

Electronic Trace Data and Legal Outcomes: The Effect of Electronic Medical Records on Malpractice Claim Resolution Time

Information systems generate copious trace data about what individuals do and when they do it. Trace data may affect the resolution of lawsuits by, for example, changing the time needed for legal discovery. Trace data might speed resolution by clarifying what events happened when, or they might slow resolution by generating volumes of new and potentially irrelevant data that must be analyzed. To investigate this, we analyze the effect of electronic medical records (EMRs) on malpractice claim resolution time. Use of EMRs within hospitals at the time of the alleged malpractice is associated with a four-month (12%) reduction in resolution time. Because unresolved malpractice claims impose substantial costs on the entire healthcare system, our finding that EMRs are associated with faster resolution has broad welfare implications. Furthermore, as we increasingly digitize society, the ramifications of trace data on legal outcomes matter beyond the medical context. This paper was accepted by Teck Ho, information systems.

The cost of consent: why healthcare providers must be compliant with the Montgomery principles

The cost of clinical negligence in the UK has continued to rise despite no increase in claims numbers from 2016 to 2019. In the US, medical malpractice claim rates have fallen each year since 2001 and the payout rate has stabilized. In Germany, malpractice claim rates for spinal surgery fell yearly from 2012 to 2017, despite the number of spinal operations increasing. In Australia, public healthcare claim rates were largely static from 2008 to 2013, but private claims rose marginally. The cost of claims rose during the period. UK and Australian trends are therefore out of alignment with other international comparisons. Many of the claims in orthopaedics occur as a result of “failure to warn”, i.e. lack of adequately documented and appropriate consent. The UK and USA have similar rates (26% and 24% respectively), but in Germany the rate is 14% and in Australia only 2%. This paper considers the drivers for the increased cost of clinical negligence claims in the UK compared to the USA, Germany and Australia, from a spinal and orthopaedic point of view, with a focus on “failure to warn” and lack of compliance with the principles established in February 2015 in the Supreme Court in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. The article provides a description of the prevailing medicolegal situation in the UK and also calculates, from publicly available data, the cost to the public purse of the failure to comply with the principles established. It shows that compliance with the Montgomery principles would have an immediate and lasting positive impact on the sums paid by NHS Resolution to settle negligence cases in a way that has already been established in the USA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):550–555.

The resolution process and the timing of settlement of medical malpractice claims

We draw on uniquely detailed micro-level data from a Belgian professional medical liability insurer to examine how different procedural and legal events that take place during the unfolding of a medical malpractice claim influence the timing of its settlement. Utilizing the competing risks regression framework, we find that settlement hazard is all else equal statistically significantly positively associated with the completion of those procedural and legal events that most effectively reveal factual information about the underlying medical malpractice case. Consistent with theory, settlement hazard is either unassociated or even negatively associated with the completion of other procedural and legal events. Our analysis, therefore, provides policy insights into which aspects of the resolution process could be emphasized, and which de-emphasized, in order to reduce the often excessive duration of medical malpractice claims and its adverse effects on the healthcare system.

Being a Good Caring Person Is All I Need in Order to Practice Ethically and Reduce My Risk of a Malpractice Claim

In general, mental health practitioners are very caring, compassionate, good people. Yet, even so, and even when working diligently to provide the best care possible to clients, it is possible to engage in unethical behaviors and be at risk of a malpractice claim. This chapter explains how ethical practice and effective risk management go far beyond being a nice and caring person. Specific guidance is provided on how to think and reason ethically, especially when confronted with ethical dilemmas and clinically complex and challenging situations. Specific risk management strategies that every mental health practitioner should engage in on an ongoing basis are explained. Guidance is provided on how to act in a manner consistent with one’s values to promote a good working relationship with clients, while ensuring ethical practice and active risk management.

Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges

Controversy exists regarding whether doctors who perform abortions should be required to hold hospital admitting privileges, but no research exists as to the extent to which they actually hold and use such privileges. Extensive Internet and government data sources were used to identify and verify abortionists in Florida. All medical and osteopathic abortion doctors who were licensed to practice at any time during the period 2011 to 2016 were included in the study (n = 85). Every abortionist hospital admission of a female patient aged 15 to 44 occurring during the 6-year study period was identified (n = 21 502). Abortionist physicians are 74.1% male, 62% have been in practice for 30 years or longer, 27.1% are graduates of foreign medical schools, and 55.3% are board certified. Nearly half (48.2%) of the abortionists had at least 1 malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action, or criminal charge. Half (50.6%) of the abortionists reported hospital privileges, but only 32 (37.6%) admitted at least 1 patient to a hospital. Seven physicians accounted for 68.2% of all the admissions, and 79.6% of all admissions were related to a live birth. Black was the modal race (47.6%) and Medicaid the most frequent (64.9%) pay source. Nearly one-fifth (19.4%) of admissions came through the emergency department. Physicians who hold hospital privileges are significantly ( P < .05) more likely to be board certified and to be approved for Medicaid payment than their colleagues without privileges. Of those doctors who hold and use hospital privileges, the lowest admission volume physicians are significantly less likely to be involved in live births, more likely to admit commercially insured and white inpatients, and much more likely to use the emergency room as the route to hospital admissions for their Medicaid-eligible and black patients. Further study of abortionist physicians is indicated regarding their heterogeneous personal and professional characteristics; their career pathways and practice concentrations; their relative integration with or isolation from peers and the professional network; the importance of black and poor induced abortion patients in their total caseload; and, especially for abortionists without hospital privileges, the means by which their patients requiring emergency care and hospitalization are accommodated.