A 23-year analysis of litigation in orthopedic elbow surgery.

BACKGROUND: The reasons for malpractice litigation in elbow surgery are not well understood. The aim of this study is to report the most frequently litigated surgeries of the elbow and analyze the reasons for litigation and case outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Westlaw legal database was performed, and all federal and state jurisdiction litigation cases involving the elbow from 2000 to 2023 were queried. Cases were excluded if they did not involve an orthopedic surgeon, nor primary elbow injury or procedure. Cases were reviewed for demographic information, surgical procedure based on reference Current Procedural Terminology codes, complications, symptoms, and reasons for litigation. Quantitative information, including settlement and indemnity cost to the defendant orthopedic surgeon, was analyzed. Cases were subdivided based on United States Census Bureau regions and states to assess regional frequency of litigation with analyses of variance. RESULTS: There were 59 cases meeting inclusion criteria from 2000 to 2023. The most litigated cases involved were ulnar nerve transposition/release and open reduction and internal fixation of the proximal radius and/or ulna at the elbow. The most litigated complication was claimed nerve damage (46%) and permanent disability (27%). Of the total cases, the most frequently litigated symptoms were nerve damage (46%) and loss of function (37%), whereas the least frequent was postoperative stiffness (2%). The Pacific region demonstrated the highest litigation rate (20%), whereas the East South Central, Mountain, and New England regions had the lowest litigation rate (3% each). A favorable verdict was given to the defendant orthopedic surgeon in 59% of the cases. The average loss incurred through settlement was $245,590, whereas the average indemnity paid through verdict was $523,334. CONCLUSION: Operative fixation of the proximal ulna/radius and ulnar nerve release/transposition are the most litigated procedures of the elbow. Litigation is most associated with nerve injury. Across Census Bureau regions, there is no significant difference in monetary cost incurred through settlements and verdict losses. Although a majority of litigated cases are won by the defending orthopedic surgeon, thorough informed consent and perioperative expectation management may mitigate litigation risk.

Claims in orthopedic foot/ankle surgery, how can they help to improve quality of care? A retrospective claim analysis.

BACKGROUND: Orthopedic foot/ankle surgery is a high risk specialty when it comes to malpractice claims. This study aims to evaluate the incidence, characteristics and outcome of claims in this area. METHODS: This was a retrospective, 10-year claim analysis, with data from an anonymous database. Baseline claim/claimant characteristics were collected from all orthopedic foot/ankle-related cases. RESULTS: Of 460 claims in total, most were related to delay in/wrong diagnosis or to (complications of) elective surgical procedures. Whether a claim was settled was related to type of injury (fracture) and type of claim (diagnostic mistake). Median amount disbursed in settled claims was €12,549. Claim incidence did not increase over the years. CONCLUSION: Missed fracture diagnosis and "failed"/disappointing results of elective surgical procedures were the most common causes for claims. Sufficient knowledge of missed (foot) fractures and clear communication/expectation management before elective procedures could help to improve quality of healthcare and patient satisfaction.

Malpractice Litigation for Compartment Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze litigation involving compartment syndrome to identify the causes and outcomes of such malpractice suits. A better understanding of such litigation may provide insight into areas where clinicians may make improvements in the delivery of care. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the Westlaw database from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2018 were reviewed. The search term "compartment syndrome" was used to identify cases and extract data on the specialty of the physician defendant, the demographics of the plaintiff, the allegation, and the verdict. RESULTS: A total of 124 individual cases involving the diagnosis of compartment syndrome were identified. Medical centers or the hospital was included as a defendant in 51.6% of cases. The most frequent physician defendants were orthopedic surgeons (45.96%) and emergency medicine physicians (20.16%), followed by cardiothoracic/vascular surgeons (16.93%). Failure to diagnose was the most frequently cited claim (71.8% of cases). Most plaintiffs were men, with a mean age of 36.7 years, suffering injuries for an average of 5 years before their verdict. Traumatic compartment syndrome of the lower extremity causing nerve damage was the most common complication attributed to failure to diagnose, leading to litigation. Forty cases (32.25%) were found for the plaintiff or settled, with an average award of $1,553,993.66. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers a brief overview of the most common defendants, plaintiffs, and injuries involved in legal disputes involving compartment syndrome. Orthopedic surgeons were most commonly named; however, vascular surgeons may also be involved in these cases because of the large number of cases with associated arterial involvement. A significant percentage of cases were plaintiff verdicts or settled cases. Failure to diagnosis or delay in treatment was the most common causes of malpractice litigation. Compartment syndrome is a clinical diagnosis and requires a high level of suspicion for a timely diagnosis. Lack of objective criteria for diagnosis increases the chances of medical errors and makes it an area vulnerable to litigation.

Can spinal surgery in England be saved from litigation: a review of 978 clinical negligence claims against the NHS.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the true incidence of all clinical negligence claims against spinal surgery performed by orthopaedic spinal surgeons and neurosurgeons in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, including both open and closed claims. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of 978 clinical negligence claims held by NHS Resolution against spinal surgery cases identified from claims against 'Neurosurgery' and 'Orthopaedic Surgery'. This category included all emergency, trauma and elective work and all open and closed cases without exclusion between April 2012 and April 2017. RESULTS: Clinical negligence claims in spinal surgery were estimated to cost £535.5 million over this five-year period. There is a trend of both increasing volume and estimated costs of claims. The most common causes for claims were 'judgement/timing' (512 claims, 52.35%), 'interpretation of results/clinical picture' (255 claims, 26.07%), 'unsatisfactory outcome to surgery' (192 claims, 19.63%), 'fail to warn/informed consent' (80 claims, 8.13%) and 'never events' including 'wrong site surgery' or 'retained instrument post-operation' (26 claims, 2.66%). A sub-analysis of 3 years including 574 claims revealed the most prevalent pathologies were iatrogenic nerve damage (132 claims, 23.00%), cauda equina syndrome (CES) (131 claims, 22.82%), inadequate decompression (91 claims, 15.85%), iatrogenic cord damage (72 claims, 12.54%), and infection (51 claims, 8.89%). CONCLUSIONS: The volume and costs of clinical negligence claims is threatening the future of spinal surgery. If spinal surgery is to continue to serve the patients who need it, most thorough investigation, implementation and sharing of lessons learned from litigation claims must be systematically carried out. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Alleged malpractice in orthopaedics. Analysis of a series of medmal insurance claims.

BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice is an important topic worldwide, and orthopedics is a clinical branch that is considered to be at a high risk for claims. The analysis of a series of medmal insurance claims allows forensic pathologists, clinicians, and insurance companies to probe the risk of a specific clinical branch for medical malpractice claims and highlights areas where care may be improved. We investigated the main features of a major Italian insurance broker's archive in order to identify recurrent pitfalls in this field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out on orthopedics claims. The archive covered claims from 2002 to 2013 that targeted 1980 orthopedists. RESULTS: 635 claims were found and analyzed with a focus on the clinical activity invocked in the claim, the presence of alleged team malpractice, the clinical outcome of the case, and the final forensic decision regarding the claim. 299 orthopedists had at least one malpractice claim made against them during the available period; 146 orthopedists were subject to more than one malpractice claim. Most of the claims regarded perioperative and operative cases, usually originating from civil litigation. The anatomical sites most commonly involved were the hip or knees, and sciatic nerve lesions were the main contributor. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedics is a medical specialty with a high risk for malpractice claims. In our study, medical malpractice was observed in nearly 50% of the cases-typically in surgery-linked cases resulting in permanent impairment of the patient. Death from orthopedics malpractice seemed to be rare. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

[Operation well performed but insufficiently documented and not indicated]. / Operation lege artis, jedoch mangelhaft dokumentiert und nicht indiziert.

A 50-year-old patient presented with a lump in the main joint of the fourth finger of the left hand, which was suspected of being malignant, for an operation. Following surgery the lump was still present and, furthermore, the patient reported a wound resulting from surgery on the third finger accompanied by swelling, pain and a loss of mobility. The patient accused the physician of performing surgery without indications on the wrong finger together with failure to remove the lump. The surgeon stated that lysis had been performed on the flexor tendon in the area of the lump. An external expert admonished the cursory surgery report; however, the expert stated that removal of the lump at the tendon would have been medically indicated and the operation was performed according to professional surgical standards. The decision of the arbitration board differed from the expert opinion as the insufficient documentation presented at first could have been understood to mean that a tendon node on the fourth finger was to be removed which was not the case. Furthermore, the operation performed would only have been indicated if a "trigger finger" were present; therefore, the surgery as well as the resulting afflictions and follow-up treatment were to be assessed as faulty. The handwritten surgery report had several shortcomings as well and led to a reversal of the burden of proof.

Medical and legal considerations in managing patients with musculoskeletal tumors.

At some point in their careers, many orthopaedic surgeons will have to navigate the legal system as it pertains to medical malpractice. An orthopaedic surgeon will find it helpful to review information on the basic legal elements of medical malpractice law along with suggestions on how he or she can assist the legal defense team if a lawsuit is filed. Surgeons who face litigation within the context of managing patients with musculoskeletal tumors should be aware of the common pitfalls in managing these patients. Knowledge of complementary strategies can provide good patient care and reduce legal risks when caring for patients with musculoskeletal neoplasms.

Professional liability in orthopaedics and traumatology in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Interest in medical errors has increased during the last few years owing to the number of medical malpractice claims. Reasons for the increasing number of claims may be related to patients' higher expectations, iatrogenic injury, and the growth of the legal services industry. Claims analysis provides helpful information in specialties in which a higher number of errors occur, highlighting areas where orthopaedic care might be improved. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined: (1) the number of claims involving orthopaedics and traumatology in Rome; (2) the risk of litigation in elective and trauma surgery; (3) the most common surgical procedures involved in claims and indemnity payments; (4) the time between the adverse medical event and the judgment date; and (5) issues related to informed consent. METHODS: We analyzed 1925 malpractice judgments decided in the Civil Court of Rome between 2004 and 2010. RESULTS: In total, 243 orthopaedics claims were filed, and in 75% of these cases surgeons were found liable; 149 (61%) of these resulted from elective surgery. Surgical teams were sued in 30 claims and found liable in 22. The total indemnity payment ordered was more than €12,350,000 (USD 16,190,000). THA and spinal surgery were the most common surgical procedures involved. Inadequate informed consent was reported in 5.3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that careful medical examination, accurate documentation in medical records, and adequate informed consent might reduce the number of claims. We suggest monitoring of court judgments would be useful to develop prevention strategies to reduce claims.

Health policy implications of outcomes measurement in orthopaedics.

BACKGROUND: An emphasis on "value" over volume in health care is driving new healthcare measurement, delivery, and payment models. Orthopaedic surgery is a major contributor to healthcare spending and, as such, is the focus of many of these new models. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: An evaluation of "value" in orthopaedics requires information that has not traditionally been collected as part of routine clinical practice. If value is defined as patient outcomes in relation to healthcare costs, we need to collect information about both. In orthopaedics, patient-reported functional status is not routinely measured, and a poor understanding of the costs associated with the provision of musculoskeletal care limits our ability to quantify and report on financial measures. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: To improve the value of musculoskeletal care, we need to focus on both improving outcomes and controlling costs. To improve outcomes, orthopaedists must agree on a set of outcome measures for appropriate care and advocate for their collection through the use of registries. Orthopaedic registries in several countries provide best practices for this information collection and sharing. In the United States, we should make comparable investments in registries to measure patient-reported outcomes. To address escalating costs, we need to improve the accuracy of cost data by applying modern cost accounting processes. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Orthopaedists should take a leadership position in the promotion and implementation of value-based health care by advocating for the use of registries to measure risk-adjusted patient specific outcomes, negotiating with payors for value-based payment incentives and applying modern cost accounting processes to control costs rather than waiting for public and private payors to define components of the value equation that will affect how orthopaedic surgeons are evaluated and compensated in the future.

Few insurance-based differences in upper extremity elective surgery rates after healthcare reform.

BACKGROUND: Before the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, there were documented insurance-based disparities in access to orthopaedic surgeons and care of orthopaedic conditions. While Massachusetts passed healthcare reform in 2007 with many similar provisions, it is unknown whether the disparities were present during the period of the law's enactment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether differences in rates of surgery between patients with novel government-subsidized healthcare plans and other forms of insurance, and between uninsured and insured patients, were similar after institution of the Massachusetts reform laws. METHODS: We identified 7577 patients diagnosed with upper extremity injuries between January 1, 2007 and October 1, 2010. From an institutional administrative database, we extracted demographics, insurance status, and plan of care. Insurance categories included government-subsidized healthcare plan (Commonwealth Care), private insurance, workers compensation, military-related (TriCare), Medicare, Medicaid (MassHealth), non-Commonwealth Care, and other insured and uninsured. After adjusting for age, gender, and diagnosis, we compared the proportions of patients who underwent elective surgery. RESULTS: Of 7577 patients, 1685 (22%) underwent elective upper extremity surgery. The adjusted rates of surgery were similar across most insurance categories, with higher rates in the workers compensation and TriCare categories compared with Commonwealth Care. Uninsured patients were as likely to undergo surgery as insured patients. CONCLUSION: In a population with near-universal health insurance, a government-run health insurance exchange, and novel, government-subsidized, managed care plans, we found few insurance-based differences in rates of elective upper extremity orthopaedic surgery in a cohort of patients after healthcare reform.

Reducing Wrong-level Spinal Surgeries Through Root Cause Analyses: A 10-year Longitudinal Analysis of a Single Tertiary Institution's Iterative Policy Improvements.

MINI: This study is a comprehensive narrative of all wrong-level spine surgeries and prevention strategies employed at our institution between 2008 and 2019, and aims to provide a roadmap for developing a rigorous prevention protocol. We systematically track root cause analyses and policy changes to determine which prevention strategies are most effective.

Retrospective review. We aim to create a comprehensive narrative of all wrong-level spinal surgeries (WLSS) and subsequent prevention strategies employed at our institution and provide a roadmap for developing a rigorous prevention protocol. There is currently no published evidence-based protocol to prevent WLSS. Previous studies are limited to multi-institution surgeon surveys and opinion pieces; the impact of serial interventions to eliminate WLSS is lacking. No studies have longitudinally analyzed a single institution's serial root cause analyses (RCA) of individual WLSS cases and the stepwise impact of targeted interventions to reduce WLSS occurrence. We reviewed all wrong-site spine surgeries and prevention strategies employed at our institution between 2008 and 2019, and corresponding WLSS-related RCAs were collected from institutional records. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of these reports and tracked policy implementations that resulted along with the incidence of WLSS following each policy. Fifteen WLSS were identified with 13 corresponding RCAs of 21,179 spine surgeries between 2008 and 2019. Three policy categories emerged: imaging, operating room (OR) culture, and vertebral body marking. The salient changes from each category were: requiring two immovable vertebral markers (2013); requiring intraoperative radiographs with markers and retractors positioned (2014); open-ended questioning during spinal level verification by residents and fellows (2015); and requiring an impartial radiologist to have verbal contact with the operating surgeon intraoperatively to collaboratively discuss localization (2018). Each change resulted in WLSS incidence decline (five in 2014, three in 2015, 0 in 2019). Stepwise process improvement based on WLSS case review is necessary, as no one change in standard operating procedure effectively eliminated WLSS. Improvements in communication between OR staff, surgeon, and radiologist, as well as intraoperative imaging and marking optimization all contributed to improvements in WLSS rates. By focusing on lessons learned from RCAs using this methodology, institutions can iteratively improve rates of WLSS. Level of Evidence: 4.