Malpractice litigation and spinal surgery in the National Health Service: a single tertiary-level centre perspective over 12 years.

INTRODUCTION: Medical malpractice litigation is a major concern for all spine surgeons. Our aim was to evaluate the incidence and burden of successful litigation relating to the management of spinal disorders over 12 years within a UK NHS tertiary-level spinal unit and compare these litigation costs with those of other specialties. METHODS: We obtained all data held by our claims department from its inception in January 2008 to December 2019. We also obtained costs for the total financial burden incurred by our Trust during this period. RESULTS: In total, there were 83 closed claims involving spinal pathologies. Over 80% of these comprised negligent surgery (n = 28, 34%), delay to diagnose/treat (n = 25, 30%) and negligent care (n = 18, 22%). The vast majority of claims were withdrawn without incurring any cost to the hospital (n = 59, 71%) and only 24 (29%) resulted in successful litigation for the claimant. The total cost of damages for these 24 successful claims was just over £8 million, including legal costs of £2.5 million, out of total litigation costs of £381 million over this period. DISCUSSION: Fewer than 30% of initial claims against a tertiary spinal surgical referral unit resulted in a successful financial outcome for the claimant. The total costs incurred were just over £8 million, with one-third apportioned to high legal costs, reflecting the complexity of resolving spinal litigation. Our entire legal expenses accounted for only 2% of the total legal bill paid by our hospital over a 12-year period.

Medical photography with a mobile phone: useful techniques, and what neurosurgeons need to know about HIPAA compliance.

Medical photographs are commonly employed to enhance education, research, and patient care throughout the neurosurgical discipline. Current mobile phone camera technology enables surgeons to quickly capture, document, and share a patient scenario with colleagues. Research demonstrates that patients generally view clinical photography favorably, and the practice has become an integral part of healthcare. Neurosurgeons in satellite locations often rely on residents to send photographs of diagnostic imaging studies, neurological examination findings, and postoperative wounds. Images are also frequently obtained for research purposes, teaching and learning operative techniques, lectures and presentations, comparing preoperative and postoperative outcomes, and patient education. However, image quality and technique are highly variable. Capturing and sharing photographs must be accompanied by an awareness of the legal ramifications of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA compliance is straightforward when one is empowered with the knowledge of what constitutes a patient identifier in a photograph. Little has been published to describe means of improving the accuracy and educational value of medical photographs in neurosurgery. Therefore, in this paper, the authors present a brief discussion regarding four easily implemented photography skills every surgeon who uses his or her mobile phone for patient care should know: 1) provide context, 2) use appropriate lighting, 3) use appropriate dimensionality, and 4) manage distracting elements. Details of the HIPAA-related components of mobile phone photographs and patient-protected health information are also included.

Trend of Malpractice Litigation against Neurosurgeons in Japan: An Analysis of Disclosed Database by Courts in Japan from 2001 through 2015.

Following the modern raising of public awareness, the numbers of malpractice litigation are increasing in the health care delivery system in Japan despite the extensive efforts of physicians. Authors reviewed the issues of litigation and the reasons for court decision from the healthcare-related negligence lawsuits in the past 15 years in Japan and investigated the cautionary points for reducing potential litigation. Healthcare-related negligence lawsuits between January 2001 and December 2015 were retrieved and sorted in each clinical field from the database in Courts in Japan and investigated on the proportional factors of the claims and court decisions in the neurosurgical field. During the period, 446 of healthcare-related court decisions including 41 against neurosurgeons (9.2%) were retrieved. Three of 41 decisions retrieved were decisions to retries for lower court decisions. In 38 claims against the neurosurgeons, 26 identified the negligence and 12 dismissed. In 26 decisions in favor of the plaintiffs, identified negligence in diagnosis in 4, clinical judgment in 3, technical skills in 5, clinical management in 7 and process of informed consent in 7. Five out of 18 decisions after 2006 were identified as negligence in an informed consent process, and additional one, who was mainly identified in inadequate technical skills also identified existing an inadequate informed consent process as a fundamental cause of litigation. Neurosurgeons are a higher risk group for malpractice litigation in Japan and adequate informed consent is important to reduce the risk of litigation.

Neurosurgery and Telemedicine in the United States: Assessment of the Risks and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has seen substantial growth in the past 20 years, related to technologic advancements and evolving reimbursement policies. The risks and opportunities of neurosurgical telemedicine are nuanced. METHODS: We reviewed general and peer-reviewed literature as it relates to telemedicine and neurosurgery, with particular attention to best practices, relevant state and federal policy conditions, economic evaluations, and prospective clinical studies. RESULTS: Despite technologic development, growing interest, and increasing reimbursement opportunities, telemedicine's utilization remains limited because of concerns regarding an apparent lack of need for telemedicine services, lack of widespread reimbursement, lack of interstate licensure reciprocity, lack of universal access to necessary technology, concerns about maintaining patient confidentiality, and concerns and limited precedent regarding liability issues. The Veterans Health Administration, a component of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, represents a setting in which these concerns can be largely obviated and is a model for telemedicine best practices. Results from the VA demonstrate substantial cost savings and patient satisfaction with remote care for chronic neurologic conditions. Overall, the economic and clinical benefits of telemedicine will likely come from 1) diminished travel times and lost work time for patients; 2) remote consultation of subspecialty experts, such as neurosurgeons; and 3) remote consultation to assist with triage and care in time-sensitive scenarios, including acute stroke care and "teletrauma." CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine is effective in many health care scenarios and will become more relevant to neurosurgical patient care. We favor proceeding with legislation to reduce barriers to telemedicine's growth.

The effect of duty hour regulations on outcomes of neurological surgery in training hospitals in the United States: duty hour regulations and patient outcomes.

OBJECT: The effects of sleep deprivation on performance have been well documented and have led to changes in duty hour regulation. New York State implemented stricter duty hours in 1989 after sleep deprivation among residents was thought to have contributed to a patient's death. The goal of this study was to determine if increased regulation of resident duty hours results in measurable changes in patient outcomes. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures at hospitals with neurosurgery training programs were identified and screened for in-hospital complications, in-hospital procedures, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality. Comparisons in the above outcomes were made between New York hospitals and non-New York hospitals before and after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) regulations were put into effect in 2003. RESULTS: Analysis of discharge disposition demonstrated that 81.9% of patients in the New York group 2000-2002 were discharged to home compared with 84.1% in the non-New York group 2000-2002 (p = 0.6, adjusted multivariate analysis). In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ (p = 0.7). After the regulations were implemented, there was a nonsignificant decrease in patients discharged to home in the non-New York group: 84.1% of patients in the 2000-2002 group compared with 81.5% in the 2004-2006 group (p = 0.6). In-hospital mortality did not significantly change (p = 0.9). In New York there was no significant change in patient outcomes with the implementation of the regulations; 81.9% of patients in the 2000-2002 group were discharged to home compared with 78.0% in the 2004-2006 group (p = 0.3). In-hospital mortality did not significantly change (p = 0.4). After the regulations were in place, analysis of discharge disposition demonstrated that 81.5% of patients in the non-New York group 2004-2006 were discharged to home compared with 78.0% in the New York group 2004-2006 (p = 0.01). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Regulation of resident duty hours has not resulted in significant changes in outcomes among neurosurgical patients.

Worse outcomes for patients undergoing brain tumor and cerebrovascular procedures following the ACGME resident duty-hour restrictions.

OBJECT: On July 1, 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented duty-hour restrictions for resident physicians due to concerns for patient and resident safety. Though duty-hour restrictions have increased resident quality of life, studies have shown mixed results with respect to patient outcomes. In this study, the authors have evaluated the effect of duty-hour restrictions on morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and charges in patients who underwent brain tumor and cerebrovascular procedures. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to evaluate the effect of duty-hour restrictions on complications, mortality, length of stay, and charges by comparing the pre-reform (2000-2002) and post-reform (2005-2008) periods. Outcomes were compared between nonteaching and teaching hospitals using a difference-in-differences (DID) method. RESULTS: A total of 90,648 patients were included in the analysis. The overall complication rate was 11.7%, with the rates not significantly differing between the pre- and post-duty hour eras (p = 0.26). Examination of hospital teaching status revealed that complication rates decreased in nonteaching hospitals (12.1% vs 10.4%, p = 0.0004) and remained stable in teaching institutions (11.8% vs 11.9%, p = 0.73) in the post-reform era. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significantly higher complication risk in teaching institutions (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.11-1.59], p = 0.0022), with no significant change in nonteaching hospitals (OR 1.11 [95% CI 0.91-1.37], p = 0.31). A DID analysis to compare the magnitude in change between teaching and nonteaching institutions revealed that teaching hospitals had a significantly greater increase in complications during the post-reform era than nonteaching hospitals (p = 0.040). The overall mortality rate was 3.0%, with a significant decrease occurring in the post-reform era in both nonteaching (5.0% vs 3.2%, p < 0.0001) and teaching (3.2% vs 2.3%, p < 0.0001) hospitals. DID analysis to compare the changes in mortality between groups did not reveal a significant difference (p = 0.40). The mean length of stay for all patients was 8.7 days, with hospital stay decreasing from 9.2 days to 8.3 days in the post-reform era (p < 0.0001). The DID analysis revealed a greater length of stay decrease in nonteaching hospitals than teaching institutions, which approached significance (p = 0.055). Patient charges significantly increased in the post-reform era for all patients, increasing from $70,900 to $96,100 (p < 0.0001). The DID analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the changes in charges between teaching and nonteaching hospitals (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of duty-hour restrictions correlated with an increased risk of postoperative complications for patients undergoing brain tumor and cerebrovascular neurosurgical procedures. Duty-hour reform may therefore be associated with worse patient outcomes, contrary to its intended purpose. Due to the critical condition of many neurosurgical patients, this patient population is most sensitive and likely to be negatively affected by proposed future increased restrictions.

A nine-year review of medicolegal claims in neurosurgery.

INTRODUCTION: Neurosurgery remains among the highest malpractice risk specialties. This study aimed to identify areas in neurosurgery associated with litigation, attendant causes and costs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted of 42 closed litigation cases treated by neurosurgeons at one hospital between March 2004 and March 2013. Data included clinical event, timing and reason for claim, operative course and legal outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-nine claims were defended out of court and twelve were settled out of court. One case required court attendance and was defended. Of the 42 claims, 28, 13 and 1 related to spinal (0.3% of caseload), cranial (0.1% of caseload) and peripheral nerve (0.07% of caseload) surgery respectively. The most common causes of claims were faulty surgical technique (43%), delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis (17%), lack of information (14%) and delayed treatment (12%), with a likelihood of success of 39%, 29%, 17% and 20% respectively. The highest median payouts were for claims against faulty surgical technique (£230,000) and delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis (£212,650). The mean delay between clinical event and claim was 664 days. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal surgery carries the highest litigation risk versus cranial and peripheral nerve surgery. Claims are most commonly against faulty surgical technique and delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis, which have the highest success rates and payouts. In spinal surgery, the most common cause of claims is faulty surgical technique. In cranial surgery, the most common cause is lack of information. Claims may occur years after the clinical event, necessitating thorough contemporaneous documentation for adequate future defence. We emphasise thorough patient consultation and meticulous surgical technique to minimise litigation in neurosurgical practice.

Potential financial impact of restriction in "never event" and periprocedural hospital-acquired condition reimbursement at a tertiary neurosurgical center: a single-institution prospective study.

OBJECT: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have moved to limit hospital augmentation of diagnosis-related group billing for "never events" (adverse events that are serious, largely preventable, and of concern to the public and health care providers for the purpose of public accountability) and certain hospital-acquired conditions (HACs). Similar restrictions may be applied to physician billing. The financial impact of these restrictions may fall on academic medical centers, which commonly have populations of complex patients with a higher risk of HACs. The authors sought to quantify the potential financial impact of restrictions in never events and periprocedural HAC billing on a tertiary neurosurgery facility. METHODS: Operative cases treated between January 2008 and June 2008 were reviewed after searching a prospectively maintained database of perioperative complications. The authors assessed cases in which there was a 6-month lag time to allow for completion of hospital and physician billing. They speculated that other payers would soon adopt the present CMS restrictions and that procedure-related HACs would be expanded to cover common neurosurgery procedures. To evaluate the impact on physician billing and to directly contrast physician and hospital billing impact, the authors focused on periprocedural HACs, as opposed to entire admission HACs. Billing records were compiled and a comparison was made between individual event data and simultaneous cumulative net revenue and net receipts. The authors assessed the impact of the present regulations, expansion of CMS restrictions to other payers, and expansion to rehospitalization and entire hospitalization case billing due to HACs and never events. RESULTS: A total of 1289 procedures were completed during the examined period. Twenty-five procedures (2%) involved patients in whom HACs developed; all were wound infections. Twenty-nine secondary procedures were required for this cohort. Length of stay was significantly higher in patients with HACs than in those without (11.6 +/- 11.5 vs 5.9 +/- 7.0 days, respectively). Fifteen patients required readmission due to HACs. Following present never event and HAC restrictions, hospital and physician billing was minimally affected (never event billing as percent total receipts was 0.007% for hospitals and 0% for physicians). Nonpayment for rehospitalization and reoperation for HACs by CMS and private payers yielded greater financial impact (CMS only, percentage of total receipts: 0.14% hospital, 0.2% physician; all payers: 1.56% hospital, 3.0% physician). Eliminating reimbursement for index procedures yielded profound reductions (CMS only as percentage of total receipts: 0.62% hospital, 0.8% physician; all payers: 5.73% hospital, 8.9% physician). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found potentially significant reductions in physician and facility billing. The expansion of never event and HACs reimbursement nonpayment may have a substantial financial impact on tertiary care facilities. The elimination of never events and reduction in HACs in current medical practices are worthy goals. However, overzealous application of HACs restrictions may remove from tertiary centers the incentive to treat high-risk patients.

It is easier to confuse a jury than convince a judge: the crisis in medical malpractice.

STUDY DESIGN: A study of cervical spine malpractice cases was conducted. Identifying tort reform models may help to resolve a crisis in medical malpractice. OBJECTIVE: To identify tort reform models that may help to resolve a crisis in medical malpractice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medical malpractice faces a crisis. Insurance rates are exorbitant, yet many injured patients go uncompensated. Physicians practice defensive medicine for fear of suits, and society pays the price. METHODS: Using, 36 malpractice cases involving cervical spine surgery were identified: 20 from California ($250,000 cap on pain and suffering) and 16 from New York ("the sky's the limit"). Queries included who sued, who was sued, who won, who lost, and why? Six different tort reform models also were identified and explored. RESULTS: Common bases for suits included failure to diagnose and treatment (56%), lack of informed consent (64%), new neurologic deficits (64%), and pain and suffering (72%). All of the six plaintiff verdicts (average, $4.42 million) and four of the nine settlements (average, $1.6 million) involving surgery that resulted in new postoperative quadriplegia appeared to be appropriate. However, the author could discern "no fault" in cases five defendants had settled, and the surgeons did not deserve to lose. On the other hand, the author found "fault" in five defense verdicts rendered to three newly quadriplegic patients and two with new postoperative root injuries. These patients deserved monetary awards, but received no compensation whatsoever. There currently are two models that would work better than the system in place in most states. These include the American Medical Association National Specialty Societies Medical Liability Project with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Model (SSMLP), and the Selective No Fault Models. Among the advantages shared by one or more of these models is their ability to reimburse injured patients while eliminating physician liability, to use malpractice panels rather than trials, and to put a cap on damages. CONCLUSIONS: To solve the medical malpractice crisis, Congress, the individual states, or both should adopt tort reform. Two tort reform models compensating injured patients and eliminating physician liability appear to be not only effective but also fair to all concerned parties.