RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Assisted human reproduction (AHR) is a complex process of clinical, laboratory, and organizational activities that involve risk and safety. The regulation of the Canadian fertility industry is a mix of federal and provincial/territorial responsibility. Oversight of care is fragmented as patients, donors, and surrogates may each live in different jurisdictions. The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) undertook a retrospective analysis of CMPA medico-legal data to identify the contributing factors to medico-legal risks for Canadian physicians providing AHR services. METHODS: Experienced CMPA medical analysts, reviewed information from closed cases. A previously reported medical coding methodology was applied to a 5-year retrospective descriptive analysis of CMPA cases closed between 2015 and 2019, involving physicians caring for patients with infertility seeking AHR. Class action legal cases were excluded. All contributing factors were analyzed using the CMPA Contributing Factor Framework.1 Cases were de-identified and reported at the aggregate level for analysis to ensure confidentiality for both patients and health care providers. RESULTS: There were 860 gynaecology cases with comprehensive information and peer expert review. Of these, 43 cases involved patients seeking AHR. Due to the small sample size, the results presented are for descriptive purposes only. AHR cases had an unfavourable outcome for the physician in 29 cases. Diagnostic error was noted in 10 cases. The most common patient allegations were related to a breakdown in communication. Peer experts were critical of patient care in 34 cases. These were divided among provider, team, and system factors. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic error was the most common clinical concern. Deficient clinical decision-making and communication breakdown with the patient contributed to these errors. Enhanced clinical decision-making, through heightened situational awareness, strengthened diagnostic test follow-up, and improved communication with the health care team may reduce medico-legal complaints related to AHR and improve patient safety.
Assuntos
Ginecologia , Infertilidade , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Canadá , ReproduçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become a core diagnostic tool for many physicians due to its portability, excellent safety profile, and diagnostic utility. Despite its growing use, the potential risks of POCUS use should be considered by providers. We analyzed the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) repository to identify medico-legal cases arising from the use of POCUS. METHODS: We retrospectively searched the CMPA closed-case repository for cases involving diagnostic POCUS between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2021. Cases included civil-legal actions, medical regulatory authority (College) cases, and hospital complaints. Patient and physician demographics, outcomes, reason for complaint, and expert-identified contributing factors were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, there were 58,626 closed medico-legal cases in the CMPA repository with POCUS determined to be a contributing factor for medico-legal action in 15 cases; in all cases the medico-legal outcome was decided against the physicians. The most common reasons for patient complaints were diagnostic error, deficient assessment, and failure to perform a test or intervention. Expert analysis of these cases determined the most common contributing factors for medico-legal action was failure to perform POCUS when indicated (7 cases, 47%); however, medico-legal action also resulted from diagnostic error, incorrect sonographic approach, deficient assessment, inadequate skill, inadequate documentation, or inadequate reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Although the most common reason associated with the medico-legal action in these cases is failure to perform POCUS when indicated, inappropriate use of POCUS may lead to medico-legal action. Due to limitations in granularity of data, the exact number of civil-legal, College cases, and hospital complaints for each contributing factor is unavailable. To enhance patient care and mitigate risk for providers, POCUS should be carefully integrated with other clinical information, performed by providers with adequate skill, and carefully documented.
RESUMO
Although rapid treatment improves outcomes for patients presenting with sepsis, early detection can be difficult, especially in otherwise healthy adults. OBJECTIVES: Using medico-legal data, we aimed to identify areas of focus to assist with early recognition of sepsis. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective descriptive design. We analyzed closed medico-legal cases involving physicians from a national database repository at the Canadian Medical Protective Association. The study included cases closed between 2011 and 2020 that had documented peer expert criticism of a diagnostic issue related to sepsis or relevant infections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used univariate statistics to describe patients and physicians and applied published frameworks to classify contributing factors (provider, team, system) and diagnostic pitfalls based on peer expert criticisms. RESULTS: Of 162 involved patients, the median age was 53 years (interquartile range [IQR], 34-66 yr) and mortality was 49%. Of 218 implicated physicians, 169 (78%) were from family medicine, emergency medicine, or surgical specialties. Eighty patients (49%) made multiple visits to outpatient care leading up to sepsis recognition/hospitalization (median = two visits; IQR, 2-4). Almost 40% of patients were admitted to the ICU. Deficient assessments, such as failing to consider sepsis or not reassessing the patient prior to discharge, contributed to the majority of cases (81%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Sepsis continues to be a challenging diagnosis for clinicians. Multiple visits to outpatient care may be an early warning sign requiring vigilance in the patient assessment.
RESUMO
To enhance patient safety and prevent medico-legal complaints, we need to understand current trends and impacts. We aimed to characterize Canadian plastic surgery medico-legal patterns in many dimensions. METHOD: This retrospective descriptive analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association data between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017 included closed regulatory body complaints and civil-legal actions involving plastic surgeons. We excluded class action legal cases and hospital complaints. We collected data on patient allegations, procedure types, healthcare-related patient harms, and peer expert criticisms. The primary outcome of interest was physician medico-legal outcome. RESULTS: We found 414 cases that met the inclusion criteria: 253 (61.1%) cases involved cosmetic procedures and 161 (38.9%) noncosmetic procedures. The annual incidence among plastic surgeon members of regulatory body complaints and civil-legal actions was 12.1% and 6.7%, for a combined incidence of 18.8%. The most common allegations were deficient clinical assessment, inadequate informed consent, delayed or misdiagnosis, and inadequate monitoring. Leading contributing factors were physician-patient communication breakdown, deficient clinical judgments, and inadequate documentation. The top procedural complications included cosmetic deformity, poor scarring, upper extremity stiffness or deficit, major structural injury, and mental health disorder. Less than half of cases (198/414, 47.8%) had unfavorable medico-legal outcomes for the surgeon. Patients were compensated in 86/198 (43.4%) of civil-legal cases. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons experience more medico-legal complaints for cosmetic versus noncosmetic procedures. To minimize medico-legal risks, plastic surgeons should focus on strong physician-patient communication, patient education/consent, thorough clinical assessment, minimizing potentially preventable complications, and maintaining relevant documentation.