Associations Over Time Between Paid Medical Malpractice Claims and Imaging Utilization in the United States.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore state-level relationships between the incidence and payout amounts for medical malpractice claims and Medicare imaging utilization and spending across the United States. METHODS: Using claims data from a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2004 to 2016, annual state population-adjusted rates of imaging utilization and spending were calculated. Using National Practitioner Data Bank files, all paid physician malpractice claims were identified, and lagged state population-adjusted rolling averages of paid claim frequencies and payout amounts were calculated. Controlling for secular trends and state fixed effects with robust standard errors clustered at the state level to account for serial autocorrelation, associations between imaging utilization and lagged paid malpractice claims were assessed using multivariate regression models. Log-log model specification was used to obtain elasticity measures. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2016, national Medicare diagnostic imaging utilization and spending declined by 31.4% and 47.2%, respectively (from 355,057 to 243,517 examinations and from $28,591,146 to $15,099,291 per 100,000 beneficiaries). Overall national paid malpractice claims and payout amounts declined by 46.4% and 39.6%, respectively (from 4.83 to 2.59 claims and from $1,803,565 to $1,089,112 per 100,000 population). After controlling for secular trends and state fixed effects, advanced imaging utilization was positively associated with the lagged number of per capita paid malpractice claims. Each 1% increase in average paid malpractice claims was associated with a subsequent 0.20% increase in advanced imaging utilization (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Positive associations between paid malpractice claims and advanced Medicare imaging utilization support the contention that US physicians use medical imaging as a defensive medicine strategy.

An Analysis of Otolaryngology Medical Malpractice Payments From the National Practitioner Data Bank.

OBJECTIVE: To describe malpractice payments made on behalf of otolaryngologists, analyze trends over time, and test the association of payment amount with severity of alleged malpractice and patient age. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: National Practitioner Data Bank. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study comprised all payments made on behalf of otolaryngologists from 1991 to 2018 that were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. Descriptive statistics were calculated within and across years. Trends in payments were analyzed with the Mann-Kendall test. Generalized linear regression was utilized to test for association of payment amount with severity of the alleged injury and patient age. RESULTS: From 1991 to 2018, there was a significant decrease in the number of payments (272 to 81) and number of otolaryngologists on whose behalf payments were made (250 to 77). Mean and median payments increased significantly from $248,848 to $420,386 and from $96,813 to $275,000, respectively. By severity of alleged injury, mean payments ranged from $39,755 (95% CI, $20,957-$75,412) for insignificant injury to $754,349 (95% CI, $624,847-$910,692) for patients who were left quadriplegic, sustained brain damage, or required lifelong care. By patient age, mean payments for patients ≥60 years old were $191,465 (95% CI, $159,880-$229,292) versus $247,878 (95% CI, $209,416-$293,402) for patients aged 20 to 39 years and $232,225 (95% CI, $197,691-$272,793) for patients aged 40 to 59 years. CONCLUSION: The annual number and total value of malpractice payments decreased, while the annual mean and median payments increased. Payment amount was associated with severity of alleged malpractice and patient age.

Nurse practitioner malpractice data: Informing nursing education.

BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners (NPs) are often identified in medical malpractice claims. However, the use of malpractice data to inform the development of nursing curriculum is limited. The purpose of this study is to examine medical errors committed by NPs. METHODS: Using National Practitioner Data Bank public use data, years 1990 to 2014, NP malpractice claims were classified by event type, patient outcome, setting, and number of practitioners involved. RESULTS: The greatest proportion of malpractice claims involving nurse practitioners were diagnosis related (41.46%) and treatment related (30.79%). Severe patient outcomes most often occurred in the outpatient setting. Nurse practitioners were independently responsible for the event in the majority of the analyzed claims. CONCLUSION: Moving forward, nurse practitioner malpractice data should be continuously analyzed and used to inform the development of nurse practitioner education standards and graduate program curriculum to address areas of clinical weakness and improve quality of care and patient safety.

Trends in US malpractice payments in dentistry compared to other health professions - dentistry payments increase, others fall.

Background Little is known about trends in the number of malpractice payments made against dentists and other health professionals. Knowledge of these trends will inform the work of our professional organisations.Methods The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) in the United States was utilised. Data about malpractice payments against dentists, hygienists, nurses, optometrists, pharmacists, physicians (DO and MD), physicians' assistants, podiatrists, psychologists, therapists and counsellors during 2004-14 were studied. Variables include type of healthcare provider, year malpractice payment was made and range of payment amount.Results In 2004 there were 17,532 malpractice payments against the studied health professions. In 2014 there were 11,650. In 2004, the number of malpractice payments against dentists represented 10.3% of all payments and in 2014 it represented 13.4%. Number of malpractice payments against dentists in 2012-2014 increased from 1,388 to 1,555.Conclusions There is an upward pressure on the number of dental malpractice payments over the last 3 years. Concurrently, there is a downward pressure on the number of combined non-dentist healthcare professional malpractice payments.

Physician Assistant and Nurse Practitioner Malpractice Trends.

Trends in malpractice awards and adverse actions (e.g., revocation of provider license) following an act or omission constituting medical error or negligence were examined. The National Practitioner Data Bank was used to compare rates of malpractice reports and adverse actions for physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs). During 2005 through 2014, there ranged from 11.2 to 19.0 malpractice payment reports per 1,000 physicians, 1.4 to 2.4 per 1,000 PAs, and 1.1 to 1.4 per 1,000 NPs. Physician median payments ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 times higher than PAs or NPs. Diagnosis-related malpractice allegations varied by provider type, with physicians having significantly fewer reports (31.9%) than PAs (52.8%) or NPs (40.6%) over the observation period. Trends in malpractice payment reports may reflect policy enactments to decrease liability.

Medical Malpractice in Dermatology-Part II: What To Do Once You Have Been Served with a Lawsuit.

Facing a malpractice lawsuit can be a daunting and traumatic experience for healthcare practitioners, with most clinicians naïve to the legal landscape. It is crucial for physicians to know and understand the malpractice system and his or her role once challenged with litigation. We present part II of a two-part series addressing the most common medicolegal questions that cause a great deal of anxiety. Part I focused upon risk-management strategies and prevention of malpractice lawsuits, whereas part II provides helpful suggestions and guidance for the physician who has been served with a lawsuit complaint. Herein, we address the best approach concerning what to do and what not to do after receipt of a legal claim, during the deposition, and during the trial phases. We also discuss routine concerns that may arise during the development of the case, including the personal, financial, and career implications of a malpractice lawsuit and how these can be best managed. The defense strategies discussed in this paper are not a guide separate from legal representation to winning a lawsuit, but may help physicians prepare for and cope with a medical malpractice lawsuit. This article is written from a US perspective, and therefore not all of the statements made herein will be applicable in other countries. Within the USA, medical practitioners must be familiar with their own state and local laws and should consult with their own legal counsel to obtain advice about specific questions.

An empirical data comparison of regulatory agency and malpractice legal problems for psychiatrists.

BACKGROUND: Our objective is to compare legal difficulties that psychiatrists encounter in regulatory agency and malpractice (insurance) settings. METHODS: Data sources included a literature search of malpractice and medical board discipline from 1990 to 2009 (rates and types of discipline); publicly available insurance data (malpractice frequency and type); and data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) (required reports of malpractice settlements and hospital discipline). RESULTS: Medical board discipline findings indicate that psychiatrists are at increased risk of disciplinary action compared with other specialties. NPDB data indicated relatively infrequent problems for psychiatrists. In malpractice, psychiatry accounted for a small percentage of overall claims and settlements. Overall, more years in practice and a lack of board certification increased the risk of legal difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: There are shared and separate risk factors in the malpractice and regulatory agency areas, but there is evidence that these 2 legal areas are distinct from each other.

Surgical malpractice claims in the United States.

Despite ongoing reform, there is still significant physician concern regarding the impact of medical claims on their practices. It is important that physicians and healthcare risk management professionals have a good understanding of the outcomes of medical malpractice to participate in its restructuring as needed and to prevent potentially harmful practices. In our study, we reviewed National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) paid malpractice claim reports from September 1, 1990, through July 30, 2011, and identified the 10 most common surgery-related allegations against physicians, excluding those listed as unspecified. Data were collected on the number of claims, the cost of the claims, and physician and patient characteristics.

How policy makers can smooth the way for communication-and- resolution programs.

Communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs) in health care organizations seek to identify medical injuries promptly; ensure that they are disclosed to patients compassionately; pursue timely resolution through patient engagement, explanation, and, where appropriate, apology and compensation; and use lessons learned to improve patient safety. CRPs have existed for years, but they are being tested in new settings and primed for broad implementation through grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These projects do not require changing laws. However, grantees' experiences suggest that the path to successful dissemination of CRPs would be smoother if the legal environment supported them. State and federal policy makers should try to allay potential defendants' fears of litigation (for example, by protecting apologies from use in court), facilitate patient participation (for example, by ensuring access to legal representation), and address the reputational and economic concerns of health care providers (for example, by clarifying practices governing National Practitioner Data Bank reporting and payers' financial recourse following medical error).

The National Practitioner Data Bank: what CRNAs need to know.

As a nationwide flagging system, the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) allows state licensing boards, hospitals, and other registered healthcare entities the ability to monitor practitioners through reporting and inquiry about the qualifications and competency of healthcare practitioners seeking clinical privileges where incompetence or unprofessional conduct could adversely affect a patient's welfare. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists are not exempt from being reported on or queried by registered reporting and querying entities. The NPDB warehouses data pertaining to adverse actions or medical malpractice payments taken against a practitioner. Based on the updated federal ruling published in the Federal Register regarding the NPDB and Section 1921 of the Social Security Act, the NPDB has expanded the definition of healthcare practitioners to include all healthcare practitioners as a means of protecting beneficiaries of the Social Security Act's healthcare programs. As such, nurse anesthetists should be aware of the additional reportable information that may be collected or disseminated based on the updated ruling pertaining to the NPDB.

The national practitioner data bank and CRNA anesthesia-related malpractice payments.

A retrospective analysis of the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) Public Use Data File was performed on anesthesia-related malpractice payments from 2004 to 2010. Anesthesia-related allegations, malpractice act or omission codes, severity of injury, and cost were assessed. The NPDB captured 369 anesthesia-related malpractice payments associated with Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), of which the 3 most frequently coded injury classifications for severity were death, minor permanent injury, and grave permanent injury. In general, the most costly payments based on median cost were major permanent injury, followed by grave permanent injury and death. When reviewing specific allegations of malpractice act or omission among the total number of CRNA malpractice payments, the most common allegations were improper performance,, failure to monitor, and problem with intubation. Patients between the ages of 40 and 59 years, inpatients, and female gender were independently more prevalent among CRNA malpractice claims leading to payment than other patient demographics.

25-Year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986-2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterise the frequency, health outcomes and economic consequences of diagnostic errors in the USA through analysis of closed, paid malpractice claims. METHODS: We analysed diagnosis-related claims from the National Practitioner Data Bank (1986-2010). We describe error type, outcome severity and payments (in 2011 US dollars), comparing diagnostic errors to other malpractice allegation groups and inpatient to outpatient within diagnostic errors. RESULTS: We analysed 350 706 paid claims. Diagnostic errors (n=100 249) were the leading type (28.6%) and accounted for the highest proportion of total payments (35.2%). The most frequent outcomes were death, significant permanent injury, major permanent injury and minor permanent injury. Diagnostic errors more often resulted in death than other allegation groups (40.9% vs 23.9%, p<0.001) and were the leading cause of claims-associated death and disability. More diagnostic error claims were outpatient than inpatient (68.8% vs 31.2%, p<0.001), but inpatient diagnostic errors were more likely to be lethal (48.4% vs 36.9%, p<0.001). The inflation-adjusted, 25-year sum of diagnosis-related payments was US$38.8 billion (mean per-claim payout US$386 849; median US$213 250; IQR US$74 545-484 500). Per-claim payments for permanent, serious morbidity that was 'quadriplegic, brain damage, lifelong care' (4.5%; mean US$808 591; median US$564 300), 'major' (13.3%; mean US$568 599; median US$355 350), or 'significant' (16.9%; mean US$419 711; median US$269 255) exceeded those where the outcome was death (40.9%; mean US$390 186; median US$251 745). CONCLUSIONS: Among malpractice claims, diagnostic errors appear to be the most common, most costly and most dangerous of medical mistakes. We found roughly equal numbers of lethal and non-lethal errors in our analysis, suggesting that the public health burden of diagnostic errors could be twice that previously estimated. Healthcare stakeholders should consider diagnostic safety a critical health policy issue.

Surgical never events in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Surgical never events are being used increasingly as quality metrics in health care in the United States. However, little is known about their costs to the health care system, the outcomes of patients, or the characteristics of the providers involved. We designed a study to describe the number and magnitude of paid malpractice claims for surgical never events, as well as associated patient and provider characteristics. METHODS: We used the National Practitioner Data Bank, a federal repository of medical malpractice claims, to identify malpractice settlements and judgments of surgical never events, including retained foreign bodies, wrong-site, wrong-patient, and wrong-procedure surgery. Payment amounts, patient outcomes, and provider characteristics were evaluated. RESULTS: We identified a total of 9,744 paid malpractice settlement and judgments for surgical never events occurring between 1990 and 2010. Malpractice payments for surgical never events totaled $1.3 billion. Mortality occurred in 6.6% of patients, permanent injury in 32.9%, and temporary injury in 59.2%. Based on literature rates of surgical adverse events resulting in paid malpractice claims, we estimated that 4,082 surgical never event claims occur each year in the United States. Increased payments were associated with severe patient outcomes and claims involving a physician with multiple malpractice reports. Of physicians named in a surgical never event claim, 12.4% were later named in at least 1 future surgical never event claim. CONCLUSION: Surgical never events are costly to the health care system and are associated with serious harm to patients. Patient and provider characteristics may help to guide prevention strategies.

Which is feared more: harm to the ego or financial peril? A survey of anesthesiologists' attitudes about medical malpractice.

This article reports the results of a study of anesthesiologists to assess their concerns regarding medical malpractice liability risk. Specifically, it explored whether their fears stem more from being named as a party to a suit or from the financial impact of damage awards. According to the respondents, their reputation among patients and colleagues is of greater concern than the financial impact of a malpractice suit. Forty-six percent of the 149 respondents reported a constant fear of malpractice risk; 43% were concerned about their reputation among colleagues and 57% feared their reputation would be compromised among patients. A large majority voiced concern about potential inclusion in the National Practitioner Data Bank (83%) and their rankings on online physician-grading sites (85%). Forty-one percent said financial consequences were a concern, and 54% indicated that obtaining affordable liability coverage was an issue.

Failure to notify reportable test results: significance in medical malpractice.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic physicians generally acknowledge their responsibility to notify referring clinicians whenever examinations demonstrate urgent or unexpected findings. During the past decade, clinicians have ordered dramatically greater numbers of diagnostic examinations. One study demonstrated that between 1996 and 2003, malpractice payments related to diagnosis increased by approximately 40%. Communication failures are a prominent cause of action in medical malpractice litigation. The aims of this study were to (1) define the magnitude of malpractice costs related to communication failures in test result notification and (2) determine if these costs are increasing significantly. EVALUATION: Linear regression analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank claims data from 1991 to 2009 suggested that claims payments increased at the national level by an average of $4.7 million annually (95% confidence interval, $2.98 million to $6.37 million). Controlled Risk Insurance Company/Risk Management Foundation claims data for 2004 to 2008 indicate that communication failures played a role, accounting for 4% of cases by volume and 7% of the total cost. DISCUSSION: Faile communication of clinical data constitutes an increasing proportion of medical malpractice payments. The increase in cases may reflect expectations of more reliable notification of medical data. Another explanation may be that the remarkable growth in diagnostic test volume has led to a corresponding increase in reportable results. If notification reliability remained unchanged, this increased volume would predict more failed notifications. CONCLUSIONS: There is increased risk for malpractice litigation resulting from diagnostic test result notification. The advent of semiautomated critical test result management systems may improve notification reliability, improve workflow and patient safety, and, when necessary, provide legal documentation.

Paid malpractice claims for adverse events in inpatient and outpatient settings.

CONTEXT: An analysis of paid malpractice claims may provide insight into the prevalence and seriousness of adverse medical events in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To report and compare the number, magnitude, and type of paid malpractice claims for events in inpatient and outpatient settings. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians in outpatient and inpatient settings using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank from 2005 through 2009. We evaluated trends in claims paid by setting, characteristics of paid claims, and factors associated with payment amount. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of paid claims, mean and median payment amounts, types of errors, and outcomes of errors. RESULTS: In 2009, there were 10,739 malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians. Of these paid claims, 4910 (47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.6%-48.5%) were for events in the inpatient setting, 4448 (43.1%; 95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) were for events in the outpatient setting, and 966 (9.4%; 95% CI, 8.8%-9.9%) involved events in both settings. The proportion of payments for events in the outpatient setting increased by a small but statistically significant amount, from 41.7% (95% CI, 40.9%-42.6%) in 2005 to 43.1% (95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) in 2009 (P < .001 for trend across years). In the outpatient setting, the most common reason for a paid claim was diagnostic (45.9%; 95% CI, 44.4%-47.4%), whereas in the inpatient setting the most common reason was surgical (34.1%; 95% CI, 32.8%-35.4%). Major injury and death were the 2 most common outcomes in both settings. Mean payment amount for events in the inpatient setting was significantly higher than in the outpatient setting ($362,965; 95% CI, $348,192-$377,738 vs $290,111; 95% CI, $278,289-$301,934; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In 2009, the number of paid malpractice claims reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank for events in the outpatient setting was similar to the number in the inpatient setting.