Effect of malpractice claims on orthopedic and traumatology physicians in Turkey: A survey study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the malpractice claims experienced by orthopedic and traumatology physicians and to determine their effects on burnout, job satisfaction, and clinical practice. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted on orthopedic and traumatology specialists between May 2019 and February 2020. Data collection was carried out via e-survey at "turk-ortopedi" mail group, which is an electronic communication network of orthopedic and traumatology physicians. For data collection, sociodemographic data forms were used including the general characteristics, working conditions, and the malpractice claim events along with the Maslach Burnout Inventory scale to evaluate burnout and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to investigate job satisfaction. RESULTS: In total, 353 orthopedic and traumatology physicians (348 men, 5 women), including 37 professors, 41 associate professors, and 275 surgeons, completed the questionnaire. In total, 65.4% of the participants (231 physicians and 471 relevant dossiers) stated that they were currently facing a malpractice claim. Emotional burnout and hesitant behavior in medical practices were significantly higher among the physicians who had undergone an investigation/trial with the claim of malpractice (p<0.05), whereas intrinsic job satisfaction was significantly lower (p<0.05). It was determined that orthopedic and traumatology physicians dealing with arthroplasty, vertebral surgery, hand surgery, and foot/ankle surgeries had undergone significantly more trials (p<0.05). In the evaluation of the burnout levels and job satisfaction scores of the physicians according to the age, academic title, seniority, and institution, it was determined that burnout level decreased with age, those between the ages of 25 and 34 years were exhausted the most, and job satisfaction increased with age. It was also found that burnout level decreased and job satisfaction increased as the academic title became higher, and attending physicians were the most exhausted. Moreover, burnout level decreased as seniority increased, the most senior ones were the ones most exhausted, and job satisfaction increased with seniority. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this study has revealed that malpractice claims cause emotional burnout, low intrinsic job satisfaction, and a hesitant behavior in medical practice for the orthopedic and traumatology physicians. The concept of malpractice alone may result in unnecessary analyses/examinations for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Diagnostic Study.

Instant messaging application usage for clinical consultation among orthopedic surgery residents in Turkey: A survey study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the characteristics of instant messaging application (IMA) usage for clinical consultation among orthopedic residents in Turkey and to explore their experiences and opinions concerning potential legal problems. METHODS: A questionnaire titled "Instant messaging for consultation among orthopedic surgeons" consisting of 21 questions was applied to orthopedic surgery residents, and the results were analyzed. The questions were designed to obtain information on 4 categories: 1) demographics and professional experience, 2) attitudes on the use of cellular phones, 3) IMA usage for clinical consultation purposes, and 4) problems and comments on smartphone application usage for clinical consultation purposes. The participants who had no experience with a smartphone or IMA usage were excluded at the final analysis. RESULTS: A total of 860 orthopedic residents (849 males [98.7%]; mean age=28.6 years; age range=22-44 years) participated in the survey (participation rate: 97.3%). The distribution of residency years was as follows: 1st year, 27%; 2nd year, 21.4%; 3rd year, 18.4%; 4th year, 17.4%; and 5th year, 49.9%. The most frequently used IMAs were WhatsApp (99.3%), Facebook Messenger (14.8%), Viber (8%), and Tango (1.3%). The rate of IMA usage for consultation was 95.3%. The most common reasons to prefer IMAs for consultation were being "fast" and "easy," but only 26.3% of the residents reported that they prefer the use of IMAs because they find them "reliable." Moreover, 41.7% of the respondents reported that they had an experience of misdiagnosis owing to the use of IMAs; 81.2% of the participants used the personal information of the patients during the consultation; 57.6% of the respondents considered that legal problems may arise because of the use of IMAs during the consultation; and 51.4% believed that an electronic platform, solely for consultation purposes, is required. CONCLUSION: This survey has shown that it is necessary to make some legal regulations regarding the use of IMAs for consultation purposes and to develop applications only for medical consultation purposes. Most of the trainees make decisions using IMAs without a proper examination, putting the patients at the risk of misdiagnosis. Moreover, the confidentiality of the patient's personal information appears to be in danger when IMAs are used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Diagnostic Study.

Trends and Risk Factors in Orthopedic Lawsuits: Analysis of a National Legal Database.

Orthopedic surgeons frequently encounter medical malpractice claims. The purpose of this study was to assess trends and risk factors in lawsuits brought against orthopedic surgeons using a national legal database. A legal research service was used to search publicly available settlement and verdict reports between 1988 and 2013 by terms "orthopaedic or orthopedic" and "malpractice." Temporal trends were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for case outcomes. A total of 1562 publicly reported malpractice cases brought against orthopedic surgeons, proceeding to trial during a 26-year period, were analyzed. The plaintiffs won 462 (30%) cases, with a mean award of $1.4 million. The frequency of litigation and pay-outs for plaintiffs increased 215% and 280%, respectively, between the first and last 5-year periods. The mean payout for plaintiff-favorable verdicts was highest in pediatrics ($2.6 million), followed by spine ($1.7 million) and oncology ($1.6 million). Fracture fixation (363 cases), arthroplasty (290 cases), and spine (231 cases) were the most commonly litigated procedures, while plaintiffs were most successful for fasciotomy (48%), infection-treating procedures (43%), and carpal tunnel release (37%). When analyzing data by state and region, adjusted for population, northeastern states had a higher frequency of lawsuits. Malpractice liability has increased during the past 3 decades while orthopedic surgeons continue to win most of the cases making it to court. As patients search for medical care via publicly available information, it is important for orthopedic surgeons to understand what aspects of their own practice carry different risks of litigation. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(2):e260-e267.].

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.

Academic Orthopaedic Leadership: Current Challenges and Lessons Learned: AOA Critical Issues.

Health-care reform, market competition, cost containment, and pressure for productivity have dramatically impacted the practice of orthopaedic surgery and academic surgical training. Orthopaedic leaders and training programs are striving to identify and solve these contemporary challenges. Herein, we focus on 4 areas that currently pose important challenges to modern orthopaedic surgical departments and academic hospital systems, including the demanding and evolving skill sets that are required of physician leaders, the effects of the changing medical-legal environment on academic medicine, the impact of increased clinical productivity emphasis on surgical education, and departmental leadership transitions.

Medical Malpractice in Orthopedic Surgery: A Westlaw-Based Demographic Analysis.

A recent study that evaluated the risk of facing a malpractice claim by physician specialty found that orthopedic surgeons were at a significantly greater risk of being sued than other medical specialists. To date, no studies have characterized trends in orthopedic surgery malpractice claims. The Westlaw legal database was used to locate state and federal jury verdicts and settlements related to medical malpractice and orthopedic surgery from 2010 to 2016. Eighty-one cases were analyzed. The mean age of the affected patients and/or plaintiffs was 53.4 years. Spine surgery (21 cases; 25.9%), knee surgery (17 cases; 21.0%), and hip surgery (11 cases; 13.6%) were litigated most often. Procedural error (71 cases; 87.7%) and negligence (58 cases; 71.6%) were the 2 most commonly cited reasons for litigation. The jury found in favor of the defendant in most (50 cases; 61.7%) of the cases. The mean plaintiff (17 cases; 21.0%) verdict payout was $3,015,872, and the mean settlement (13 cases; 16.0%) value was $1,570,833. Unnecessary surgery (odds ratio [OR], 12.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-108.46; P=.040) and surgery resulting in death (OR, 26.26; 95% CI, 2.55-497.42; P=.040) were significant predictors of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Patient death (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.38; P=.021) and male patient sex (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71; P=.033) were significant negative predictors of a verdict in favor of the defendant. The jury found in favor of the defendant orthopedic surgeon in most cases. Procedural error and/or negligence were cited most commonly by the plaintiffs as the bases for the claims. Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs resulted in payouts nearly double those of settlements. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(5):e615-e620.].

A Comparison of Defense and Plaintiff Expert Witnesses in Orthopaedic Surgery Malpractice Litigation.

BACKGROUND: According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Standards of Professionalism, the responsible testimony of expert witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits is important to the public interest. However, these expert witnesses are recruited and compensated without established standards, and their testimony can potentially sway court opinion, with substantial consequences. The objective of this study was to characterize defense and plaintiff expert orthopaedic surgeon witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice litigation. METHODS: Utilizing the WestlawNext legal database, defense and plaintiff expert witnesses involved in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits from 2013 to 2017 were identified. Each witness's subspecialty, mean years of experience, involvement in academic or private practice, fellowship training, and scholarly impact, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index), were determined through a query of professional profiles, the Scopus database, and a PubMed search. Statistical comparisons were made for each parameter among defense and plaintiff expert witnesses. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2017, 306 expert medical witnesses for orthopaedic cases were identified; 174 (56.9%) testified on behalf of the plaintiff, and 132 (43.1%) testified on behalf of the defense. Orthopaedic surgeons who identified themselves as general orthopaedists comprised the largest share of expert witnesses on both the plaintiff (n = 61) and defense (n = 25) sides. The plaintiff witnesses averaged 36 years of experience versus 31 years for the defense witnesses (p < 0.001); 26% of the plaintiff witnesses held an academic position versus 43% of the defense witnesses (p = 0.013). Defense witnesses exhibited a higher proportion of fellowship training in comparison to plaintiff expert witnesses (80.5% versus 64.5%, respectively, p = 0.003). The h-index for the plaintiff group was 6.6 versus 9.1 for the defense group (p = 0.04). Two witnesses testified for both the plaintiff and defense sides. CONCLUSIONS: Defense expert witnesses held higher rates of academic appointments and exhibited greater scholarly impact than their plaintiff counterparts, with both sides averaging >30 years of experience. These data collectively show that there are differences in characteristics between plaintiff and defense witnesses. Additional study is needed to illuminate the etiology of these differences.

Academic Influence and Its Relationship to Industry Payments in Orthopaedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Hirsch index (h-index) quantifies research publication productivity for an individual, and has widely been considered a valuable measure of academic influence. In 2010, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) was introduced as a way to increase transparency regarding U.S. physician-industry relationships. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between industry payments and academic influence as measured by the h-index and number of publications among orthopaedic surgeons. We also examined the relationship of the h-index to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS: The h-indices of faculty members at academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained using the Scopus database. The PPSA web site was used to abstract their 2014 industry payments. NIH funding data were obtained from the NIH web site. Mann-Whitney U testing and Spearman correlations were used to explore the relationships. RESULTS: Of 3,501 surgeons, 78.3% received nonresearch payments, 9.2% received research payments, and 0.9% received NIH support. Nonresearch payments ranged from $6 to $4,538,501, whereas research payments ranged from $16 to $517,007. Surgeons receiving NIH or industry research funding had a significantly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving such funding. Surgeons receiving nonresearch industry payments had a slightly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving these kinds of payments. Both the h-index and the number of publications had weak positive correlations with industry nonresearch payment amount, industry research payment amount, and total number of industry payments. CONCLUSIONS: There are large differences in industry payment size and distribution among academic surgeons. The small percentage of academic surgeons who receive industry research support or NIH funding tend to have higher h-indices. For the overall population of orthopaedic surgery faculty, the h-index correlates poorly with the dollar amount and the total number of industry research payments. Regarding nonresearch industry payments, the h-index also appears to correlate poorly with the number and the dollar amount of payments. These results are encouraging because they suggest that industry bias may play a smaller role in the orthopaedic literature than previously thought.

The Affordable Care Act Decreased the Proportion of Uninsured Patients in a Safety Net Orthopaedic Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was approved in 2010, substantially altering the economics of providing and receiving healthcare services in the United States. One of the primary goals of this legislation was to expand insurance coverage for under- and uninsured residents. Our objective was to examine the effect of the ACA on the insurance status of patients at a safety net clinic. Our institution houses a safety net clinic that provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for uninsured patients in our state. Therefore, our study allows us to accurately examine the magnitude of the effect on insurance status in safety net orthopaedic clinics. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Did the ACA result in a decrease in the number of uninsured patients at a safety net orthopaedic clinic that provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for the uninsured in the state? (2) Did the proportion of patients insured after passage of the ACA differ across age or demographic groups in one state? METHODS: We retrospectively examined our longitudinally maintained adult orthopaedic surgery clinic database from January 2009 to March 2015 and collected visit and demographic data, including zip code income quartile. Based on the data published by the Rhode Island Department of Health, our clinic provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for uninsured patients in our state. Therefore, examination of the changes in the proportion of insurance status in our clinic allows us to assess the effect of the ACA on the state level. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between demographic variables and insurance status. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated for the proportion of uninsured visits. The proportion of uninsured visits before and after implementation of the ACA was evaluated with an interrupted time-series analysis. The reduction in the proportion of patients without insurance between demographic groups (ie, race, gender, language spoken, and income level) also was compared using an interrupted time-series design. RESULTS: There was a 36% absolute reduction (95% CI, 35%-38%; p < 0.001) in uninsured visits (73% relative reduction; 95% CI, 71%-75%; p < 0.001). There was an immediate 28% absolute reduction (95% CI, 21%-34%; p < 0.001) at the time of ACA implementation, which continued to decline thereafter. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, race, age, and income level, we found that patients who were white, men, younger than 65 years, and seen after January 2014 were more likely to have insurance than patients of other races, women, older patients, and patients treated before January 2014. CONCLUSIONS: After the ACA was implemented, the proportion of patients with health insurance at our safety net adult orthopaedic surgery clinic increased substantially. The reduction in uninsured patients was not equal across genders, races, ages, and incomes. Future studies may benefit from identifying barriers to insurance acquisition in these subpopulations. The results of this study could affect orthopaedic practices in the United States by guiding policy decisions regarding health care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Proof of patient information: Analysis of 201 judicial decisions.

INTRODUCTION: The ruling by the French Court of Cassation dated February 25, 1997 obliged doctors to provide proof of the information given to patients, reversing more than half a century of case law. In October 1997, it was specified that such evidence could be provided by "all means", including presumption. No hierarchy in respect of means of proof has been defined by case law or legislation. The present study analyzed judicial decisions with a view to determining the means of proof liable to carry the most weight in a suit for failure to provide due patient information. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective qualitative study was conducted for the period from January 2010 to December 2015, by a search on the LexisNexis® JurisClasseur website. Two hundred and one judicial decisions relating to failure to provide due patient information were selected and analyzed to study the characteristics of the practitioners involved, the content of the information at issue and the means of proof provided. The resulting cohort of practitioners was compared with the medical demographic atlas of the French Order of Medicine, considered as exhaustive. RESULTS: Two hundred and one practitioners were investigated for failure to provide information: 45 medical practitioners (22±3%), and 156 surgeons (78±3%) including 45 orthopedic surgeons (29±3.6% of surgeons). Hundred and ninety-three were private sector (96±1.3%) and 8 public sector (4±1.3%). Hundred and one surgeons (65±3.8% of surgeons), and 26 medical practitioners (58±7.4%) were convicted. Twenty-five of the 45 orthopedic surgeons were convicted (55±7.5%). There was no significant difference in conviction rates between surgeons and medical practitioners: odds ratio, 1.339916; 95% CI [0.6393982; 2.7753764] (Chi2 test: p=0.49). Ninety-two practitioners based their defense on a single means of proof, and 74 of these were convicted (80±4.2%). Forty practitioners based their defense on several means of proof, and 16 of these were convicted (40±7.8%). There was a significant difference in conviction rate according to reliance on single or multiple evidence of delivery of information: odds ratio, 0.165; 95% CI [0.07; 0.4] (Chi2 test: p=1.1×10-5). DISCUSSION: This study shows that surgeons, and orthopedic surgeons in particular, are more at risk of being investigated for failure to provide due patient information (D=-0.65 [-0.7; -0.6]). They are not, however, more at risk of conviction (p=0.49). Being in private practice also appeared to be a risk factor for conviction of failure to provide due information. Offering several rather than a single means of proof of delivery of information significantly reduces the risk of conviction (p=1.1×10-5). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV: Retrospective study.

Why do surgeons receive more complaints than their physician peers?

BACKGROUND: Compared with other doctors, surgeons are at an increased risk of medicolegal events, including patient complaints and negligence claims. This retrospective study aimed to describe the frequency and nature of complaints involving surgeons compared with physicians. METHODS: We assembled a national data set of complaints about surgeons and physicians lodged with medical regulators in Australia from 2011 to 2016. We classified the complaints into 19 issues across four domains: treatment and procedures, other performance, professional conduct and health. We assessed differences in complaint risk using incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Finally, we used a multivariate model to identify predictors of complaints among surgeons. RESULTS: The rate of complaints was 2.3 times higher for surgeons than physicians (112 compared with 48 complaints per 1000 practice years, P < 0.001). Two-fifths (41%) of the higher rate of complaints among surgeons was attributable to issues other than treatments and procedures, including fees (IRR = 2.68), substance use (IRR = 2.10), communication (IRR = 1.98) and interpersonal behaviour (IRR = 1.92). Male surgeons were at a higher risk of complaints, as were specialists in orthopaedics, plastic surgery and neurosurgery. DISCUSSION: Surgeons are more than twice as likely to attract complaints as their physician peers. This elevated risk arises partly from involvement in surgical procedures and treatments, but also reflects wider concerns about interpersonal skills, professional ethics and substance use. Improved understanding of these patterns may assist efforts to reduce harm and support safe practise.

Co-management Strategies for Hospitals and Orthopedic and Neurosurgery Practices.

Co-management arrangements can be a very effective means of aligning physicians and their hospitals to gain care delivery efficiencies, control costs, and reduce variation in practices. In an era of value-based care delivery all aspects must be examined and the appropriate incentives put in place to reduce waste and optimize asset and resource utilization. This article will review legal considerations, define basic co-management structure and goals, and suggest examples of metrics used to achieve success.

NHSLA litigation in hip fractures: Lessons learnt from NHSLA data.

Hip fractures are a major cause of trauma related death, usually occurring in vulnerable elderly patients. There are an estimated 70,000 hip fractures in the UK per year with numbers set to rise. The estimated annual cost to the healthcare economy is in the region of £2 billion. A 17-year review examining litigation related to hip fractures was undertaken. Under a freedom of information request, data was obtained relating to all orthopaedic claims made to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) between 1995 and 2012. Data was filtered to identify cases involving hip fractures examining litigation trends related to this specific area. 10263 NHSLA orthopaedic cases were identified, of which 13.3% (n=1364) cases related to the hip and femur. Hip fractures made up 16.7% (n=229). The total cost of hip fracture litigation was over £7 million with an average cost per case of £32,700. The commonest reasons for litigation were diagnostic errors (30.6%), issues with care (24.9%) alleged incompetent surgery (15.7%) and development of pressure sores (5.7%). This study highlights the main causes of litigation in patients sustaining hip fractures, with diagnosis in the emergency department and ward presenting a significant problem. In addition, the data identifies a range of care related issues, as well as several surgical factors and highlights the importance of pressure area care. We discuss these and make suggestions on how to improve practice in this area with the aim of improving patient care and reducing litigation.

Informal (Hallway) medical consultation in orthopedics-is it as common as it seems?

INTRODUCTION: Informal (hallway) medical consultation is an integral part of the physician's work. As musculoskeletal complaints are very common, orthopedic surgeons stand in the frontline of this practice. Many of these consultations are poorly, if at all, documented, thus imposing a potential medical danger to the patient and a medicolegal danger to the surgeon. We conducted this first study to examine whether this practice is common among the orthopedic surgeons in university hospital. METHODS: In this prospective study, a 2-month record of informal consultations was kept. Six orthopedic surgeons-two joint reconstruction surgeons, one spine surgeon, two arthroscopy and sports medicine surgeons, and a shoulder surgeon participated. They recorded the details of the consulter, whether the consultation was for himself or somebody else, the major complaint, and whether it was a second opinion. All patients were advised to go to the formal orthopedic consultation and no advice or treatment was given. At the end of 2 months, each surgeon was asked to evaluate the percentage of cases he had failed to report. RESULTS: During the 2-month period, 158 people asked for informal (hallway) consultations. 11 of them (7%) were physicians, 114 (72%) were other hospital personnel, 26 (17%) were unrelated to hospital, and 6 (4%) were treated patients' relatives. 93 (59%) of consultations were about the consulter himself and the rest were about a relative or a friend. 41 (26%) were requests for a second opinion. The estimated percentage of not reported cases was 10-40%; when the number of consultations was corrected for these figures, it reached 208 consultations in 2 months. DISCUSSION: In this prospective study, six participating surgeons recorded 158 informal consultation requests in 2 months. If a correction is performed, it averages 0.6 consultations a day for a surgeon (or, if only workdays are counted-0.8 consultations a day). Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of this frequent habit and send these patients to a formal consultation.

Negligence claims following non-union and malunion of long bone fractures: An analysis of 15 years of data.

INTRODUCTION: Non-unions and malunions are recognised to be complications of the treatment of long bone fractures. No previous work has looked at the implications of these complications from a medicolegal perspective. METHODS: A complete database of litigation claims in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery was obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority. Two separate modalities of the treatment of long bone fractures were examined i) non-union and ii) acquired deformity. The type of complaint, whether defended or not, and costs were analysed. RESULTS: There were claims of which 97 related to non-union and 32 related to postoperative limb deformity. The total cost was £8.2 million over a 15-year period in England and Wales. Femoral and tibial non-unions were more expensive particularly if they resulted in amputation. Rotational deformity cost nearly twice as much as angulation deformities. CONCLUSIONS: The cosmetic appearances of rotational malalignment and amputation results in higher compensation; this reinforces an outward perception of outcome as being more important than harmful effects. Notwithstanding the limitations of this database, there are clinical lessons to be gained from these litigation claims.

Delayed diagnosis in primary care-The main cause of sarcoma litigation in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Poor awareness and knowledge of lumps and bumps can impact on patient outcomes and survival. Late referrals or false reassurance may lead to litigation proceedings. The aim of this study was to identify the litigation cost in sarcoma care and identify areas for improvement. METHOD: Orthopaedic litigation between 1995-2010 in England and Wales was obtained from the National Health Service Litigation Authority. Litigation specifically relating to sarcoma in the extremities was identified. Causation, compensation fee, cost of legal defense, and compensation were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 52 litigation claims. Negligence was proven in 71% (n = 37) of cases. The total cost was £4.4 million (mean of £84,000/case). The mean compensation award was £92,000 (range £650-£978,000) and the mean defense cost was £22,000 (range £0-£102,000). Delayed diagnosis accounted for 89% of cases (n = 48). Negligence following diagnosis was infrequent; inappropriate treatment (n = 2), failure to recognize complications of surgery (n = 2), intra-operative problems (n = 1), failure to refer to a specialist unit after a "whoops procedure" (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Once the patient is within the specialist sarcoma unit, there is a very low rate of litigation. Efforts to reduce litigation in sarcoma treatment should focus on early diagnosis and raising awareness of sarcomas. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:361-363. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[Clinical safety and professional liability claims in Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology]. / Seguridad clínica y reclamaciones por responsabilidad profesional en Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología.

The specialist in orthopaedic and traumatological surgery, like any other doctor, is subject to the current legal provisions while exercising their profession. Mandatory training in the medical-legal aspects of health care is essential. Claims against doctors are a reality, and orthopaedic and traumatological surgery holds first place in terms of frequency of claims according to the data from the General Council of Official Colleges of Doctors of Catalonia. Professionals must be aware of the fundamental aspects of medical professional liability, as well as specific aspects, such as defensive medicine and clinical safety. The understanding of these medical-legal aspects in the routine clinical practice can help to pave the way towards a satisfactory and safe professional career. The aim of this review is to contribute to this training, for the benefit of professionals and patients.

[Analysis of judicial sentences issued against traumatologists between 1995 and 2011 as regards medical negligence]. / Análisis de sentencias judiciales relativas a negligencias médicas emitidas contra traumatólogos entre 1995 y 2011.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is one of the specialities with most complaints due to its scope and complexity. The aim of this study is to determine the characteristics of the complaints made against medical specialists in Traumatology, taking into account those variables that might have an influence both on the presenting of the complaint as well as on the resolving of the process. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analysis was performed on 303 legal judgments (1995-2011) collected in the health legal judgements archive of the Madrid School of Medicine, which is linked to the Westlaw Aranzadi data base. RESULTS: Civil jurisdiction was the most used. The specific processes with most complaints were bone-joint disorders followed by vascular-nerve problems and infections. The injury claimed against most was in the lower limb, particularly the knee. The most frequent general cause of complaint was surgical treatment error, followed by diagnostic error. There was lack of information in 14.9%. There was sentencing in 49.8% of the cases, with compensation mainly being less than 50,000 euros. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is a speciality prone to complaints due to malpractice. The number of sentences against traumatologists is high, but compensations are usually less than 50,000 euros. The main reason for sentencing is surgical treatment error; thus being the basic surgical procedure and where precautions should be maximised. The judgements due to lack of information are high, with adequate doctor-patient communication being essential as well as the correct completion of the informed consent.