The opinion of Turkish cardiologists on current malpractice system and an alternative patient compensation system proposal: PCS study group.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiologists participate in the diagnosis and interventional treatment of numerous high-risk patients. The goal of this study was to investigate how the current malpractice system in Turkey influences cardiologists' diagnostic and interventional behavior and to obtain their opinions about an alternative patient compensation system. METHODS: The present cross-sectional study assessed the practice of defensive medicine among cardiologists who are actively working in various types of workplace within the Turkish healthcare system. A 24-item questionnaire was distributed to cardiology residents, specialists, and academics in Turkey in print format, by electronic mail, or via cell phone message. RESULTS: A total of 253 cardiologists responded to the survey. Among them, 29 (11.6%) had been sued for malpractice claims in the past. Of the cardiologists who had been sued, 2 (6.9%) had been ordered to pay financial compensation, and 1 (3.4%) was given a sentence of imprisonment due to negligence. In all, 132 (52.8%) of the surveyed cardiologists reported that they had changed their practices due to fear of litigation, and 232 (92.8%) reported that they would prefer the new proposed patient compensation system to the current malpractice system. Among the cardiologists surveyed, 78.8% indicated that malpractice fear had affected their decision-making with regard to requesting computed tomography angiography or thallium scintigraphy, 71.6% for coronary angiography, 20% for stent implantation, and 83.2% for avoiding treating high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey demonstrated that cardiologists may request unnecessary tests and perform unneeded interventions due to the fear of malpractice litigation fear. Many also avoid high-risk patients and interventions. The majority indicated that they would prefer the proposed alternative patient compensation system to the current malpractice system.

Association of Liability Concerns with Decisions to Order Echocardiography and Cardiac Stress Tests with Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Professional societies have made efforts to curb overuse of cardiac imaging and decrease practice variation by publishing appropriate use criteria. However, little is known about the impact of physician-level determinants such as liability concerns and risk aversion on decisions to order testing. METHODS: A web-based survey was administered to cardiologists and general practice physicians affiliated with two academic institutions. The survey consisted of four clinical scenarios in which appropriate use criteria rated echocardiography or stress testing as "may be appropriate." Respondents' degree of liability concerns and risk aversion were measured using validated tools. The primary outcome variable was tendency to order imaging, calculated as the average likelihood to order an imaging test across the clinical scenarios (1 = very unlikely, 6 = very likely). Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between tendency to order imaging and physician characteristics. RESULTS: From 420 physicians invited to participate, 108 complete responses were obtained (26% response rate, 54% cardiologists). There was no difference in tendency to order imaging between cardiologists and general practice physicians (3.46 [95% CI, 3.12-3.81] vs 3.15 [95% CI, 2.79-3.51], P = .22). On multivariate analysis, a higher degree of liability concerns was the only significant predictor of decisions to order imaging (mean difference in tendency to order imaging, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.09-0.62; P = .01). CONCLUSION: In clinical situations in which performance of cardiac imaging is rated as "may be appropriate" by appropriate use criteria, physicians with higher liability concerns ordered significantly more testing than physicians with lower concerns.