Urological litigation trends in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of claims over 20 years.

OBJECTIVE: To look into the urology litigation trends and successful claims in the National Health Service (NHS) over the last 20 years. METHODS: We requested data from NHS Resolutions to investigate current litigation numbers, costs and causes for claims. Data collected included the number of claims dating from 1996 to 2019, the total sum of damages paid out each year for urology and the causes for the claims dating from 2009 to 2019. Data from NHS Resolutions were analysed, stratified and categorized by the authors from this information, which was provided as two separate documents. RESULTS: The total cost of damages between 1997 and 2017 was £74.5m (range: £241 325-£7.8m per year). While the number of successful claims was 1653 (range 7-168 per year), the total number of claims was 3341 (range 31-347 per year) and, over time, this has increased almost sevenfold. The cost of damages has increased roughly in line with the number of claims. Over the last 10 years, non-operative-related claims accounted for 984 claims, of which the largest subset was for 'the failure to diagnose and/or treat' (n = 639, 65%), with 88 (9%) successful consent-related claims. There were 226 intra-operative-related claims. Of these, wrong-site surgery, a never-event, accounted for eight claims and there were six successful claims for failing to supervise juniors. A total of 1129 claims were postoperative claims, with retained foreign body or instrument accounting for 71 (6%) of these. CONCLUSIONS: The number and cost of litigation claims have increased year on year. There is a need for continual improvement in patient care, surgical training, counselling, informed consent and early management of complications. The evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that the best approach to this is the combination of rigid adherence to and re-enforcement of common surgical guidelines and implementation of the national 'Getting it right first time' initiative.

[Medico-legal risk in urology: Analysis of a portfolio of insured persons by a French insurance company between 2009 and 2018]. / Risque médico-légal en urologie : analyse d'un portefeuille d'assurés auprès d'une compagnie d'assurances française entre 2009 et 2018.

OBJECTIVE: Presentation of data collected on urology claims from the register of a French insurance company. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Compensation claims involving urologists covering the period 2009-2018 were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 37 files were found. Oncological and functional surgical interventions accounts for 78% of repair claims. Postoperative complications represent 76% of the cases. The most represented acts are total prostatectomy (5) and promonto-fixation (4). The average time of complaint is 28.6 months [1-144 months], the average duration of a procedure (opening-closing) is 32.8 months [12-72 months]. The Conciliation and Compensation Commissions (CCC) and the High Court Courts (HCC) were solicited respectively in 51% and 33% of the proceedings. An amicable agreement is found in 16% of cases. There was no criminal or disciplinary proceedings. The average cost of a closed urology file is 7836 € [0-31,120 €]. In total, 64.8% of the expertises confirm practices in the respect of the rules of the art. CONCLUSION: This series presents the first forensic analysis of a portfolio of urologists on a period of 9 years in French urology. There is a rate of responsibility retained against the practitioner in only 27% of cases. The low rate of faulty files, the absence of a conviction for breach of the duty to provide information and in connection with antibiotic prophylaxis seem to confirm that the practice of urology in France is of good quality, a further study on a longer period of time and on a larger cohort of urologists would allow a finer medico-legal approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

[What is the perception of the 10-point plan of the German Federal Ministry of Health against multidrug-resistant pathogens and measures of antibiotic stewardship? : An interdisciplinary analysis among German clinicians and development of a decision tool for urologists]. / Wie werden der 10-Punkte-Plan des Deutschen Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit zur Bekämpfung resistenter Erreger und Maßnahmen des Antibiotic Stewardship wahrgenommen? : Eine fachübergreifende Analyse der Kenntnis deutscher Klinikärzte und Entwicklung einer urologischen Handlungsanweisung.

BACKGROUND: Due to increasing antibiotic resistances, relevant treatment problems are currently emerging in clinical practice. In March 2015, the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) published a 10-point plan designed to combat this development. Furthermore, the first German guideline on antibiotic stewardship (ABS) was implemented in 2013 and instructs physicians of different specialties about several treatment considerations. Evidence is scarce on how such concepts (10-point plan/BMG, ABS) are perceived among clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the MR2 study (Multiinstitutional Reconnaissance of practice with MultiResistant bacteria - a survey focusing on German hospitals), a questionnaire including 4 + 35 items was sent to 18 German hospitals between August and October 2015, surveying internists, gynecologists, general surgeons, and urologists. Using multivariate logistic regression models (MLRM), the impact of medical specialty and further criteria on the endpoints (1) awareness of the 10-point plan/BMG and (2) knowledge of ABS measures were assessed. Fulfillment of endpoints was predefined when average or full knowledge was reported (reference: poor to no knowledge). RESULTS: Overall response rate was 43% (456/1061) for fully evaluable questionnaires. Only 63.0 and 53.6% of urologists and nonurologists (internists, gynecologists, and general surgeons), respectively, attended training courses regarding multidrug-resistance or antibiotic prescribing in the 12 months prior to the study (P = 0.045). The endpoints average and full knowledge regarding 10-point plan/BMG and ABS measures were fulfilled in only 31.4 and 32.8%, respectively. In MLRM, clinicians with at least one previous training course (reference: no training course) were 2.5- and 3.8-fold more likely to meet respective endpoint criteria (all P < 0.001). Medical specialty (urologists vs. nonurologists) did not significantly impact the endpoints in both MLRM. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-point plan/BMG and ABS programs should be implemented into clinical practice, but awareness and knowledge of both is insufficient. Thus, it stands to reason that the actual realization of such measures is inadequate and continuous training towards rational prescription of antibiotics is necessary, regardless of medical specialty.

The Current State of Medical Malpractice in Urology.

Medical malpractice can present an unwelcome professional, emotional, and economic burden to the practicing urologist. To date, there is a paucity of data specific to urologic malpractice in the literature. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify and evaluate recent studies related to urologic malpractice. We also analyzed 6249 closed urologic claims from the largest available specialty-specific data set gathered by Physician Insurers Association of America from 1985 to 2012. The resulting comprehensive review seeks to raise awareness of current trends in the malpractice environment specific to urologic surgery while also helping urologists identify opportunities for risk management and improved patient care.

[Medical reviews of claims for damages and errors in urology]. / Ärztliche Begutachtung bei Vorwürfen von Behandlungsfehlern in der Urologie.

In liability law, a medical review is considered to be an expert opinion that is provided at the request of those involved (patient or physician) of a course of treatment. It must be carried out according to defined criteria with the aim of providing a plausible basis for arbitration. This is achieved by means of an objective determination of the facts, a reasonable assessment of the error(s) and (where appropriate) a realistic description of the injury involved. The following fields should be covered in a concise review: conditions and procedures applied to the review, criteria to be used in the review, types of error that are possible during the treatment, assessment of the treatment errors committed, possible treatment errors that can occur in urology, conclusions to be drawn from the review. In summary, a medical assessment carried out in the course of claims for damages should provide a balanced assessment that takes into account the confidential relationship between the physician and patient. This means that the review procedure must be performed under the best possible conditions for professional standards and care.

[Medico legal considerations on prosthesis surgery of the erectile dysfunction in a La Peyronie disease case]. / Considerazioni medico legali sulla chirurgia protesica della disfunzione erettile in un caso di malattia di La Peyronie.

Peyronie's disease is characterized by the presence of an inelastic fibrous plaque of the penile tunica albuginea affecting 3-10% of the male population. The fibrous scar causes the curvature of the erect penis, which prevents the penetration. In the stabilization phase the plaque can cause a variable degree of erectile dysfunction (20-54%). In the treatment of the chronic disease, surgery is the gold standard and in case of concomitant erectile dysfunction the placement of a penile prosthesis is indicated. This surgery is loaded with an increase of the variables which can affect the outcome, such as individual clinical features and functionality of the device. The present case concerns a patient suffering from erectile dysfunction associated with Peyronie's disease who underwent surgery for implantation of hydraulic three-component penile prosthesis. After surgery a malfunction of the prosthesis was detected, which required unloading measures under sedation and a surgical revision of the scrotal pump. The latter was followed by the displacement of the prosthesis' cylinder and by a new surgical treatment for the reintegration of the prosthesis and the repair of the left corpus cavernosum. After two months a wrong positioning of the two cylinders inserted into the corpora cavernosa, with the left cranial extreme positioned 2 cm below the contralateral, was detected. In this case the failure of surgical treatment highlights a negligent behavior and the responsibility of the doctors by failing to examine adequately the variables, both clinical and not clinical, that might affect the outcome of the intervention.

[Cases from the expert commission of the North Rhine medical council: expert commissions and arbitration boards by medical councils]. / Fälle aus der Gutachterkommission der Ärztekammer Nordrhein : Gutachterkommissionen und Schlichtungsstellen bei den Ärztekammern.

Following a description of the structure and function of the expert commission for medical malpractice of the North Rhine medical council, important legal technical terms and the consequences, such as the definition of accusable medical malpractice and severe (in legal terms gross) negligence will be presented. The article reports on the legal consequences of the lack of informed consent, on the significance of insufficient informed consent and under which conditions a transfer of liability becomes valid. From the statistical information in the archives of the expert commission it can be seen that in processes against urologists approximately 31% of urologists in private practice were affected compared to 69% of hospital urologists. Approximately 20% involved accusations of false diagnosis and 80% involved accusations of false treatment. Of the processes involving urological diagnostic errors prostate cancer was at the forefront, followed by processes involving delayed or falsely diagnosed bladder cancer. For processes due to operative treatment errors prostate cancer also occupied first place, followed by accusations of treatment errors involving penile and urethral operations. A differentiated presentation of processes involving non-operative treatment errors revealed an accumulation of accusations for mistakes in the treatment of urolithiasis, in medicinal treatment and also in tumor therapy. Following a description of typical individual cases, indications for avoidance of legal proceedings will be given.

[Status and medicolegal implications in France pT0 stage of prostate cancer: a study by the CC-AFU]. / État des lieux et implications médico-légales en France du stade pT0 du cancer de la prostate : une étude du CC-AFU.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency, circumstances, and possible medico-legal consequences of the pT0 prostate cancer, defined by the absence of tumor in a radical prostatectomy specimen. METHODS: Six centers retrospectively identified all cases of pT0 and selectionned those that occurred without prior hormone therapy or prostate resection. Preoperative data, histological report and clinical and biological outcome were analyzed. The lawsuits' registry in pathology were consulted at insurance companies. RESULTS: Thirty cases of pT0 prostate cancer (0.4%) were reported on 7693 patients. The median age was 63years, PSA 7.4ng/mL. The number of positive preoperative biopsies ranged from one to four for a median tumor length of 1mm (0.3 to 18mm). The biopsy Gleason score was 3+3 for 23 patients, less than 5 for six others and included a contingent of grade 4 in two patients. With a median follow-up of 82months, no clinical or biochemical recurrence was observed. One patient complaint for pT0 prostate was found in the insurances registry. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of a prostate pT0 called into question all the diagnostic procedures and surgical indication. To avoid a forensic procedure, urologists should inform patients of the possibility of this situation before radical prostatectomy.

Urological litigation in the UK National Health Service (NHS): an analysis of 14 years of successful claims.

OBJECTIVES: • To present a summary of the collected data on urological litigation within the UK National Health Service (NHS). • Knowledge of the main areas of litigation is essential for maintaining good clinical practice as well as risk management procedures in any specialty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: • Details of all claims closed with indemnity payment pertaining to the specialty of urology as practiced by urologists, general surgeons and paediatric surgeons was obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) for the years since its creation in 1995 to 2009. • The data was then classified and analysed. RESULTS: • In all, 493 cases were closed with indemnity payment with a total of £20,508,686.18 paid. The average payment per claim was £41,599.77. • Most of the claims were related to non-operative events (232), followed by postoperative events (168) and intraoperative events (92). • The most common reason for non-operative-related claims was failure to diagnose/treat cancer (69), perforation/organ injury (38) was the highest intraoperative-related claim and a forgotten ureteric stent (23) was the most frequent postoperative-related claim. • The five most commonly implicated procedures were ureteroscopy/ureteric stenting (45), transurethral resection of the prostate (30), nephrectomy (26), vasectomy (19) and urethral catheterisation (15). CONCLUSIONS: • The present study once again emphasizes the importance of thorough clinical assessment, record keeping and follow-up as well as informed consent and good communication with patients. • Recognising the areas of highest risk and improving practice should limit future claims.

[Medical and legal aspects of treating ambiguous genitalia]. / Medizinische und juristische Aspekte zur Behandlung intersexueller Differenzierungsstörungen.

Treatment of ambiguous genitalia has reached high standards. Damage caused by the anomaly can be reduced significantly or eliminated. In a well-defined minority definite early sex assignment is not possible but preliminary, and surgical genital correction therefore is delayed. Poor results and continuous misunderstandings regarding the nature of intersex caused strong opposition from activist groups against all forms of early diagnosis, sex assignment and surgical treatment. Supported by psychologists and the media, jurisdictional actions are underway trying to change the law and prevent parents from allowing treatment of their children. In addition, institution of a moratorium has been requested to stop genital surgery on children and to establish a third sex of hermaphrodites. All this led to irritations and insecurity concerning treatment and legal risk.Analysis of the current medical situation and the laws concerning the subject reveal that there is no alternative to early sex assignment and treatment, with the exemption of a very small, but defined group. At this moment, there is no realistic legal possibility to remove the right from parents to decide for their children, create a new sex and solve problems of intersex patients by pushing them into"hermaphroditism". This would be a decision against their and their parents' will, in a society which is based on male and female gender.