Litigation claims in Urology in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of the trends, costs and causes over a 16-year period.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the litigation trends and the reasons for claims within the specialty of Urology, within the UK National Health Service (NHS), over a 16-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were requested from NHS Resolution under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This included the total number of claims in Urology, the number of these that were successful (settled or closed), and the costs in damages paid out per financial year between 2006 and 2022. A breakdown of the successful claims by their primary cause was also collected. These were coded into the categories: 'non-operative', 'intraoperative', 'postoperative', and 'other'. RESULTS: A total of 4124 litigation claims were made between 2006 and 2022 and 60.9% (2511/4124) of these claims were successful. In all, £145 million (British pounds) was paid out in damages. The number of successful claims increased 2.9-fold from the start to end of this 16-year period, and the costs in damages paid out increased 10-fold. Regarding primary causes for the successful claims, failure or delay in treatment (20.9%, 525/2511), failure or delay in diagnosis (14.5%, 364/2511), and intraoperative problems (9.1%, 229/2511) accounted for the highest proportion. Overall, non-operative causes for successful claims accounted for 73.3% (1840/2511), intraoperative for 20.1% (504/2511), and postoperative for 3.9% (98/2511). CONCLUSIONS: The number of successful urological litigation claims, and their associated costs is rising. The majority are due to non-operative causes, which may be partially explained by NHS waiting lists alongside the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Malpractice Claims Following Major Liver and Pancreatic Surgeries: What Can we Learn?

INTRODUCTION: General surgery is a highly litigious specialty. Lawsuits can be a source of emotional distress and burnout for surgeons. Major hepatic and pancreatic surgeries are technically challenging general surgical oncology procedures associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. It is unclear whether these operations are associated with an increased risk of lawsuits. The objective of the present study was to summarize the medical malpractice claims surrounding pancreatic and hepatic surgeries from publicly available court records. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was searched and analyzed for relevant malpractice claims from the last two decades. RESULTS: Of 165 search results, 30 (18.2%) cases were eligible for inclusion. Appellant cases comprised 53.3% of them. Half involved a patient death. Including co-defendants, a majority (n = 21, 70%) named surgeons as defendants, whereas several claims (n = 13, 43%) also named non-surgeons. The most common cause of alleged malpractice was a delay in diagnosis (n = 12, 40%). In eight of these, surgery could not be performed. The second most common were claims alleging the follow-up surgery was due to negligence (n = 6). Collectively, 20 claims were found in favor of the defendant. Seven verdicts (23.3%) returned in favor of the plaintiff, two of which resulted in monetary awards (totaling $1,608,325 and $424,933.85). Three cases went to trial or delayed motion for summary judgment. There were no settlements. CONCLUSIONS: A defendant verdict was reached in two-thirds of malpractice cases involving major hepatic or pancreatic surgery. A delay in diagnosis was the most cited claim in hepatopancreaticobiliary lawsuits, and defendants may often practice in nonsurgical specialties. While rulings favoring plaintiffs are less frequent, the payouts may be substantial.

Anesthesia-Related Closed Claims in Free-Standing Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

BACKGROUND: As higher acuity procedures continue to move from hospital-based operating rooms (HORs) to free-standing ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), concerns for patient safety remain high. We conducted a contemporary, descriptive analysis of anesthesia-related liability closed claims to understand risks to patient safety in the free-standing ASC setting, compared to HORs. METHODS: Free-standing ASC and HOR closed claims between 2015 and 2022 from The Doctors Company that involved an anesthesia provider responsible for the claim were included. We compared the coded data of 212 free-standing ASC claims with 268 HOR claims in terms of severity of injury, major injuries, allegations, comorbidities, contributing factors, and financial value of the claim. RESULTS: Free-standing ASC claims accounted for almost half of all anesthesia-related cases (44%, 212 of 480). Claims with high severity of injury were less frequent in free-standing ASCs (22%) compared to HORs (34%; P = .004). The most common types of injuries in both free-standing ASCs and HORs were dental injury (17% vs 17%) and nerve damage (14% vs 11%). No difference in frequency was noted for types of injuries between claims from free-standing ASCs versus HORs--except that burns appeared more frequently in free-standing ASC claims than in HORs (6% vs 2%; P = .015). Claims with alleged improper management of anesthesia occurred less frequently among free-standing ASC claims than HOR claims (17% vs 29%; P = .01), as well as positioning-related injury (3% vs 8%; P = .025). No difference was seen in frequency of claims regarding alleged improper performance of anesthesia procedures between free-standing ASCs and HORs (25% vs 19%; P = .072). Technical performance of procedures (ie, intubation and nerve block) was the most common contributing factor among free-standing ASC (74%) and HOR (74%) claims. Free-standing ASC claims also had a higher frequency of communication issues between provider and patient/family versus HOR claims (20% vs 10%; P = .004). Most claims were not associated with major comorbidities; however, cardiovascular disease was less prevalent in free-standing ASC claims versus HOR claims (3% vs 11%; P = .002). The mean ± standard deviation total of expenses and payments was lower among free-standing ASC claims ($167,000 ± $295,000) than HOR claims ($332,000 ± $775,000; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of medical malpractice claims may indicate higher-than-expected patient and procedural complexity in free-standing ASCs, presenting patient safety concerns and opportunities for improvement. Ambulatory anesthesia practices should consider improving safety culture and communication with families while ensuring that providers have up-to-date training and resources to safely perform routine anesthesia procedures.

Risk management and empirical study of the doctor-patient relationship: based on 1790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes in China.

BACKGROUND: Compensation for medical damage liability disputes (CMDLD) seriously hinders the healthy development of hospitals and undermines the harmony of the doctor-patient relationships (DPR). Risk management in the DPR has become an urgent issue of the day. The study aims to provide a comprehensive description of CMDLD in China and explore its influencing factors, and make corresponding recommendations for the management of risks in the DPR. METHODS: This study extracted data from the China Judgment Online - the official judicial search website with the most comprehensive coverage. Statistical analysis of 1,790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes (COMDLD) available from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: COMDLD generally tended to increase with the year and was unevenly distributed by regions; the compensation rate was 52.46%, the median compensation was 134,900 yuan and the maximum was 2,234,666 yuan; the results of the single factor analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the compensation for different years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures (P < 0.05); the correlation analysis showed that types of hospitals were significantly negatively associated with regions (R=-0.082, P < 0.05); trial procedures were significantly negatively correlated with years (R=-0.484, P < 0.001); compensat- ion was significantly positively correlated with years, regions, and treatment attributes (R = 0.098-0.294, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with trial procedures (R=-0.090, P < 0.01); regression analysis showed that years, treatment attributes, and regions were the main factors affecting the CMDLD (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures affect the outcome of CMDLD. This paper further puts forward relevant suggestions and countermeasures for the governance of doctor-patient risks based on the empirical results. Including rational allocation of medical resources to narrow the differences between regions; promoting the expansion and sinking of high-quality resources to improve the level of medical services in hospitals at all levels; and developing a third-party negotiation mechanism for medical disputes to reduce the cost of medical litigation.

A 23-year analysis of litigation in orthopedic elbow surgery.

BACKGROUND: The reasons for malpractice litigation in elbow surgery are not well understood. The aim of this study is to report the most frequently litigated surgeries of the elbow and analyze the reasons for litigation and case outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Westlaw legal database was performed, and all federal and state jurisdiction litigation cases involving the elbow from 2000 to 2023 were queried. Cases were excluded if they did not involve an orthopedic surgeon, nor primary elbow injury or procedure. Cases were reviewed for demographic information, surgical procedure based on reference Current Procedural Terminology codes, complications, symptoms, and reasons for litigation. Quantitative information, including settlement and indemnity cost to the defendant orthopedic surgeon, was analyzed. Cases were subdivided based on United States Census Bureau regions and states to assess regional frequency of litigation with analyses of variance. RESULTS: There were 59 cases meeting inclusion criteria from 2000 to 2023. The most litigated cases involved were ulnar nerve transposition/release and open reduction and internal fixation of the proximal radius and/or ulna at the elbow. The most litigated complication was claimed nerve damage (46%) and permanent disability (27%). Of the total cases, the most frequently litigated symptoms were nerve damage (46%) and loss of function (37%), whereas the least frequent was postoperative stiffness (2%). The Pacific region demonstrated the highest litigation rate (20%), whereas the East South Central, Mountain, and New England regions had the lowest litigation rate (3% each). A favorable verdict was given to the defendant orthopedic surgeon in 59% of the cases. The average loss incurred through settlement was $245,590, whereas the average indemnity paid through verdict was $523,334. CONCLUSION: Operative fixation of the proximal ulna/radius and ulnar nerve release/transposition are the most litigated procedures of the elbow. Litigation is most associated with nerve injury. Across Census Bureau regions, there is no significant difference in monetary cost incurred through settlements and verdict losses. Although a majority of litigated cases are won by the defending orthopedic surgeon, thorough informed consent and perioperative expectation management may mitigate litigation risk.

Jury verdicts, outcomes, and tort reform features of malpractice cases involving thoracic outlet syndrome.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is most often referred to vascular surgeons. However, there is a lack of understanding of the malpractice cases involving TOS. The goal of this study is to better understand the medicolegal landscape related to the care of TOS. METHODS: The Westlaw Edge AI-powered proprietary system was retrospectively reviewed for malpractice cases involving TOS. A Boolean search strategy was used to identify target cases under the case category of "Jury Verdicts & Settlements" for all state and federal jurisdictions from 1970 to September 2020. The settled case was described but not included in the statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to report our findings, and when appropriate. The P ≤ .05 decision rule was established a priori as the null hypothesis rejection criterion to determine associations between jury verdicts outcomes and state's tort reform status. RESULTS: In this study, 39 cases were identified and met the study's inclusion criteria from the entire Westlaw Edge database. Among plaintiffs who disclosed age and/or gender, median age was 35.0 years with a female majority (67.6%). Cases involving TOS were noted to be steadily decreasing since the mid-1990s. The cases were unevenly spread across 18 states, with the highest number of cases (14, 35.9%) from California and the second highest (4, 10.3%) from Pennsylvania. A similar uneven distribution was seen among U.S. census regions, in which the West had the highest cases (39.5%). The study revealed that more cases were brought to trials in tort reform states (26, 68.4%) than in non-tort reform states (12, 31.6%). A total of 24 of 39 (61.5%) plaintiffs had one specific claim, which resulted in their economic and noneconomic damages. Negligent operation and treatment complication represented an overwhelming majority of claims brought by 38 of 39 plaintiffs (97.4%). Misdiagnosis and lack of informed consent were both brought nine times (23.1%) by the group. Intraoperative nerve injury (20 patients, 51.3%) was the most commonly reported complication. Excluding one case with a settlement of $965,000, 30 of 38 (78.9%) cases went to trials and received defense verdicts. Eight cases (20.5%) were found in favor of plaintiffs with a median payout of $725,581. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted higher than average payouts to plaintiffs and risk factors that may result in malpractice lawsuits for surgeons undertaking TOS treatment. Future studies are needed to further clarify the relationships between tort reform and outcomes of malpractice cases involving TOS.

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.

Clinical Negligence Claims Against Vascular Surgery in the United Kingdom: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Claims for clinical negligence awarded to patients and their families are on the increase. The annual "cost of harm" is approximately £7-9 billion in the United Kingdom. In 2017, the National Health Service (NHS) resolution service reported that they mediated more claims than in their entire history. Vascular surgery is a specialty with a disproportionately higher number of claims for clinical negligence. The aim of this observational study was to review the trends of clinical negligence claims in vascular surgery within the United Kingdom. The costs and the primary cause for the complaint were evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed. Clinical negligence claims in vascular surgery between the financial years of April 2005/2006 to April 2018/2019 were requested from NHS resolution under the Freedom of Information Act. Data were provided on November 8, 2019. All data were anonymized, and any categories containing fewer than five claims were removed to protect the identity of claimants. RESULTS: Over the 13-year period, 1,189 claims in vascular surgery were identified, with the annual mean (range) being 91 (20-134) claims per year. Of 1,189 claims, 875 (74%) are closed with payments made to the claimants. The mean annual total payment was £10,015,373. Delay in treatment was the most common cause for litigation claims in vascular surgery with 157 closed claims costing £33,255,248 over the 13-year period. Lower limb amputation was the most common primary injury claim with 140 closed cases but had a larger financial cost at £64,155,969. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical negligence claims in vascular surgery within the United Kingdom have been increasing steadily over the last 13 years and with a changing claims culture is expected to continue. The most common cause for claims with damages paid was delay in treatment, and lower limb amputation was the most common injury suffered. Improved consent, better communication with patients, and a higher surgical skill level could significantly reduce the number of future claims.

Otorhinolaryngology litigation in England: 727 clinical negligence cases against the National Health Service.

INTRODUCTION: Litigation against the National Health Service (NHS) in England is rising. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and characteristics of otorhinolaryngology clinical negligence claims in England. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all clinical negligence claims in England held by NHS Resolution relating to otorhinolaryngology between April 2013 and April 2018. Analysis was performed using information for cause, patient injury and claim cost. Where claim information was adequately detailed, the authors categorised claims by subspecialty, diagnosis and surgery. RESULTS: A total number of 727 claims were identified with an estimated potential cost of £108 million. Out of these, 463 were closed claims. Including open claim reserves, the mean cost of a claim was £148 923. Head and neck surgery was the subspecialty with the highest number of claims (n = 313, 43%) and highest cost (£51.5 million) followed by otology (n = 171, £24.5 million) and rhinology (n = 171, £13.6 million). Over half of claims were associated with an operation (n = 429, 59%) where mastoid surgery (n = 46) and endoscopic sinus surgery (n = 46) were equally associated with the greatest number of claims. The most frequent causes for clinical negligence claims included failure or delay to diagnose (n = 178, 25%), failure or delay to treat (n = 136, 19%), intra-operative complications (n = 130, 18%) and failure of the consent process (n = 107, 15%). DISCUSSION: Clinical negligence claims in otorhinolaryngology are related to several different components of patient management and are not limited to postoperative complications. This study highlights the importance of robust pathways in out-patient diagnostics and the consenting process in order to deliver better patient care and reduce the impact of litigation. Keywords informed consent, malpractice, clinical negligence claims, litigation, otolaryngology.

Compensation claims in pediatric orthopedics in Norway between 2012 and 2018: a nationwide study of 487 patients.

Background and purpose - In Norway all compensation claims based on healthcare services are handled by a government agency (NPE, Norsk Pasientskade Erstatning). We provide an epidemiological overview of claims within pediatric orthopedics in Norway, and identify the most common reasons for claims and compensations.Patients and methods - All compensation claims handled by NPE from 2012 to 2018 within pediatric orthopedics (age 0 to 17 years) were reviewed. Data were analyzed with regard to patient demographics, diagnoses, type of injury, type of treatment, reasons for granted compensation, and total payouts.Results - 487 compensation claims (259 girls, 228 boys) within orthopedic surgery in patients younger than 18 years at time of treatment were identified. Mean age was 12 years (0-17). 150 out of 487 claims (31%) resulted in compensation, including 79 compensations for inadequate treatment, 58 for inadequate diagnostics, 12 for infections, and 1 based on the exceptional rule. Total payouts were US$8.45 million. The most common primary diagnoses were: upper extremity injuries (26%), lower extremity injuries (24%), congenital malformations and deformities (12%), spine deformities (11%), disorders affecting peripheral joints (9%), chondropathies (6%), and others (12%).Interpretation - Most claims were submitted and granted for mismanagement of fractures in the upper and lower extremity, and mismanagement of congenital malformations and disorders of peripheral joints. Knowledge of the details of malpractice claims should be implemented in educational programs and assist pediatric orthopedic surgeons to develop guidelines in order to improve patient safety and quality of care.

A Step Too Far? Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14.

This comment piece explores the decision in Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14. It argues that despite notable shifts in public policy in respect of the acceptability of surrogacy as a means of family formation in the past twenty years, the Supreme Court has taken a step too far in deciding that foreign commercial surrogacy is as widely socially accepted. This impacts on the reasonableness of any claim for damages in negligence for the costs of commercial surrogacy. It is posited that the issue of whether damages for foreign commercial surrogacy are reasonable or not will be the key battleground in future negligence cases of this type.

Colorectal Cancer Litigation: 1988-2018.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) malpractice suits over the past 20 years in the United States and evaluate the most common allegations, lawsuit outcomes, indemnity payment amounts, patient outcomes, and physician characteristics. METHODS: The malpractice section of VerdictSearch, a legal database, was queried for cases in which CRC was a principle component of the lawsuit. Legal notes were used to characterize plaintiff allegations, verdict, financial compensation, and case year. Clinical history for each case were analyzed for patient demographics, medical outcomes, and physician characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 240 CRC-related malpractice cases (1988-2018) were collected, resulting in defense (n = 101, 42.1%), plaintiff (n = 37, 15.4%), or settlement (n = 96, 40%) verdict. The primary defendants were often primary care physicians (n = 61, 25.4%) and gastroenterologists (n = 55, 22.9%). Most common plaintiff allegations are failure to perform diagnostic colonoscopy for patients with symptoms (n = 67, 27.9%), failure to perform screening colonoscopy according to screening guidelines (n = 46, 19.2%), or failure to detect CRC with colonoscopy (n = 45, 18.7%). A common alleged error in diagnosis before the median year of 2005 was failure to detect CRC by the noncolonoscopic methods (<2005: n = 22, 24.2%; >2005: n = 3, 3.09%). DISCUSSION: Plaintiff-alleged errors in diagnosis are consistently the most common reason for CRC malpractice litigation in the past 20 years, whereas specific diagnostic allegations (i.e., failure to screen vs failure to detect) and methods used for surveillance may vary over time. It is important to identify such pitfalls in CRC screening and explore areas for improvement to maximize patient care and satisfaction and reduce physician malpractice litigations.

Ocular Anesthesia-Related Closed Claims from Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company 2008-2018.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the types of anesthesia-related closed claims and their contributing factors, using data from the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company (OMIC). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of preexisting data. PARTICIPANTS: Plaintiffs who filed a professional liability claim or suit (written demand for money) against OMIC-insured ophthalmologists, ophthalmic practices, or surgicenters in which the surgical case occurred. METHODS: Plaintiff claims were collected from the OMIC database from 2008 to 2018 using search queries for terms associated with known complications of ophthalmic anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and types of anesthesia-related injuries and claims, who administered the anesthesia, the outcomes of the claim or suit, cost to defend, and payments made to plaintiffs. RESULTS: Sixty-three anesthesia-related claims or suits were filed by 50 plaintiffs. Anesthesia-related injuries included globe perforation (n = 17), death (n = 13), retrobulbar hemorrhage (n = 7), optic nerve damage (n = 4), vascular occlusions (n = 2), pain (n = 2), eye or head movement resulting in injury (n = 2), and 1 case each for numbness, diplopia, and tooth loss during intubation. All but 1 patient who died had preexisting, significant comorbidities. Two deaths were related to brainstem anesthesia. Regarding the type of anesthesia in the closed claims, retrobulbar and peribulbar anesthesia were the most common types (n = 16 each), followed by local infiltration around the lids and facial nerve (n = 6), topical anesthesia (n = 5), and general anesthesia (n = 5). In 2 cases, the exact type of anesthesia was unknown but not general. The 5 topical with sedation anesthesia-related claims were due to inadequate pain control (n = 2), ocular movement resulting in capsular rupture (n = 2), or death (n = 1) allegedly related to excessive or inadequate monitoring of sedation. There were 5 claims related to general anesthesia including 4 deaths and 1 tooth loss during intubation. Sedation was alleged to be a factor in 5 cases resulting in death. Anticoagulants were a factor in 3 retrobulbar hemorrhage cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although claims and suits were infrequent given the large number of insured ophthalmologists and the large number of surgical cases requiring various types of anesthesia performed over the 10.5-year study period, severe injuries can occur.

Common Reasons for Malpractice Lawsuits Involving Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis are common clinical entities, and the related malpractice suits affect all medical subspecialties. Claims from malpractice litigation were analyzed to understand the demographics of these lawsuits and the common reasons for pursuing litigation. METHODS: Cases entered into the Westlaw database from March 5, 1987, to May 31, 2018, were reviewed. Search terms included "pulmonary embolism" and "deep vein thrombosis." RESULTS: A total of 277 cases were identified. The most frequently identified defendant was an internist (including family practitioner; 33%), followed by an emergency physician (18%), an orthopedic surgeon (16%), and an obstetrician/gynecologist (9%). The most common etiology for pulmonary embolism was prior surgery (41%). The most common allegation was "failure to diagnose and treat" in 62%. Other negligence included the failure to administer prophylactic anticoagulation while in the hospital (18%), failure to prescribe anticoagulation on discharge (8%), failure to administer anticoagulation after diagnosis (8%), and premature discontinuation of anticoagulation (2%). The most frequently claimed injury was death in 222 cases (80%). Verdicts were found for the defendant in 57% of cases and for the plaintiff in 27% and settled in 16%. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequently cited negligent act was the failure to give prophylactic anticoagulation, even after discharge. The trends noted in this study may potentially be addressed and therefore prevented by systems-based practice changes. The most common allegation, "failure to diagnose and treat," suggests that first-contact doctors such as emergency physicians and primary care practitioners must maintain a high index of suspicion for deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.

Claims for compensation from women with cervical cancer in Norway-A retrospective, descriptive study of a 12-year period.

INTRODUCTION: In Norway, all patient-reported claims for compensation are evaluated by The Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE). The number of claims from women with cervical cancer is rising, and the approval rate is high. Our aim was to study claims for compensation from women with cervical cancer to identify the type of failures, when, during the time-course of treatment, the medical failures occurred, and the consequences of the failures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive study of claims for compensation to NPE from cervical cancer patients during a 12-year period, from 2007 through 2018. We used anonymized medical expert statements and summaries of NPE cases. RESULTS: In all, 161 women claimed compensation for alleged medical failure related to cervical cancer. Compensation was approved for 100 (62%) women. Mean age at the time of alleged failure was 37.5 years (SD ±9.9). The main reasons why women sought medical attention were routine cervical screening (56%), or vaginal bleeding or discharge (30%). In approved cases, incorrect evaluation of cytology and histology was the cause of most failures (72%). Mean delay of cervical cancer diagnosis for approved cases was 28 months (SD ±22). Treatment not in accordance with guidelines was the cause of failure in 2% of the cases, and failure during follow up was the cause of failure in 12%. Consequences of the failures were as follows: worsening of cancer prognosis (89%), treatment-induced adverse effects, such as loss of fertility (43%) and/or loss of ovarian function in premenopausal women (50%), and permanent injury after chemo-radiation (27%). Seven women (7%) died, most probably as a consequence of the failure. CONCLUSIONS: The main cause of medical failure in women with cervical cancer was incorrect pathological diagnosis. The main consequences of failures were worsening of cancer prognosis and treatment-induced adverse effects. Increased focus on the quality of pathological examinations, and better routines in all parts of the cervical examinations might improve patient safety for women in risk of cervical cancer.

Malpractice Litigation for Compartment Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze litigation involving compartment syndrome to identify the causes and outcomes of such malpractice suits. A better understanding of such litigation may provide insight into areas where clinicians may make improvements in the delivery of care. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the Westlaw database from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2018 were reviewed. The search term "compartment syndrome" was used to identify cases and extract data on the specialty of the physician defendant, the demographics of the plaintiff, the allegation, and the verdict. RESULTS: A total of 124 individual cases involving the diagnosis of compartment syndrome were identified. Medical centers or the hospital was included as a defendant in 51.6% of cases. The most frequent physician defendants were orthopedic surgeons (45.96%) and emergency medicine physicians (20.16%), followed by cardiothoracic/vascular surgeons (16.93%). Failure to diagnose was the most frequently cited claim (71.8% of cases). Most plaintiffs were men, with a mean age of 36.7 years, suffering injuries for an average of 5 years before their verdict. Traumatic compartment syndrome of the lower extremity causing nerve damage was the most common complication attributed to failure to diagnose, leading to litigation. Forty cases (32.25%) were found for the plaintiff or settled, with an average award of $1,553,993.66. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers a brief overview of the most common defendants, plaintiffs, and injuries involved in legal disputes involving compartment syndrome. Orthopedic surgeons were most commonly named; however, vascular surgeons may also be involved in these cases because of the large number of cases with associated arterial involvement. A significant percentage of cases were plaintiff verdicts or settled cases. Failure to diagnosis or delay in treatment was the most common causes of malpractice litigation. Compartment syndrome is a clinical diagnosis and requires a high level of suspicion for a timely diagnosis. Lack of objective criteria for diagnosis increases the chances of medical errors and makes it an area vulnerable to litigation.

Delayed Diagnosis Is the Primary Cause of Sarcoma Litigation: Analysis of Malpractice Claims in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Sarcoma care is highly litigated in medical malpractice claims. Understanding the reasons for litigation and legal outcomes in sarcoma care may help physicians deliver more effective and satisfying care to patients while limiting their legal exposure. However, few studies have described malpractice litigation in sarcoma care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of sarcoma malpractice cases result in a defendant verdict? (2) What is the median indemnity payment for cases that result in a plaintiff verdict or settlement? (3) What are the most common reasons for litigation, injuries sustained, and medical specialties of the defendant physicians? (4) What are the factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments? METHODS: The national medicolegal database Westlaw was queried for medical malpractice cases pertaining to sarcomas that reached verdicts or settlements. Cases from 1982 to 2018 in the United States were included in the study to evaluate for trends in sarcoma litigation. Demographic and clinical data, tumor characteristics, reasons for litigation, injuries, and legal outcomes were recorded for each case. A univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments, such as tumor characteristics, defendant's medical or surgical specialty, reason for litigation, and injuries sustained. A total of 92 cases related to sarcomas were included in the study, of which 40 were related to bone sarcomas and 52 were related to soft-tissue sarcomas. Eighty-five percent (78 of 92) of cases involved adult patients (mean age ± SD: 40 ± 15 years) while 15% (14 of 92) of cases involved pediatric patients (mean age ± SD: 12.5 ± 5 years). RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent (35 of 92) of the included cases resulted in a defendant verdict, 30% (28 of 92) resulted in a plaintiff verdict, and 32% (29 of 92) resulted in a settlement. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) indemnity payment for plaintiff verdicts and settlements was USD 1.9 million (USD 0.5 to USD 3.5 million). Median (IQR) indemnity payments were higher for cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict than for cases that resulted in a settlement (USD 3.3 million [1.1 to 5.7 million] versus USD 1.2 million [0.4 to 2.4 million]; difference of medians = USD 2.2 million; p = 0.008). The most common reason for litigation was delayed diagnosis of sarcoma (91%; 84 of 92) while the most common injuries cited were progression to metastatic disease (51%; 47 of 92) and wrongful death (41%; 38 of 92). Malpractice claims were most commonly filed against primary care physicians (26%; 28 of 109 defendants), nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons (23%; 25 of 109), and radiologists (15%; 16 of 109). Cases were more likely to result in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff or settlement if a delay in diagnosis occurred despite suspicious findings on imaging or pathologic findings (80% versus 51%; odds ratio 3.84 [95% CI 1.34 to 11.03]; p = 0.02). There were no differences in indemnity payments with the numbers available in terms of tumor type, tumor location, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, and resulting injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Many lawsuits were made against primary care physicians, nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons, or radiologists for a delayed diagnosis of sarcoma despite the presence of imaging or histologic findings suspicious for malignancy. Although previous studies of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas have not shown a consistent association between time to diagnosis and decreased survival, our study suggests that physicians are still likely to lose these lawsuits because of the perceived benefits of an early diagnosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Physicians can mitigate their malpractice risk while reducing delays in diagnosis of sarcomas by carefully reviewing all existing diagnostic studies, establishing closed-loop communication protocols to communicate critical findings from diagnostic studies, and developing policies to facilitate second-opinion consultation, particularly for imaging studies, with an experienced sarcoma specialist. Musculoskeletal oncologists may be able to help further reduce the rates of malpractice litigation in sarcoma care by helping patients understand that delays in diagnosis do not necessarily constitute medical malpractice.

The paralyzing legal costs of facial nerve injury in head and neck tumors.

PURPOSE: Facial nerve paralysis from head and neck tumors can result from disease progression or iatrogenic causes, leading to litigation. The aim of this study was to investigate lawsuits regarding facial paralysis as a consequence of these tumors to understand and better educate physicians behind the reasons for litigation. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews were obtained from the Westlaw database from 1985 to 2018. Gathered data, including verdicts, litigation reasons, defendant specialties, and amounts awarded, were analyzed via Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS: Of the 26 lawsuits analyzed, the leading reason for litigation was failure to diagnose (53.8%), followed by iatrogenic injury (34.6%). The average award was $2,704,470. Otolaryngologists were the most common defendants. Defendants that included an otolaryngologist had shorter delays of diagnosis compared to those that did not (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Failure to diagnose parotid injury was the leading cause of litigation. In instances where the jury found for the plaintiff, the amount was material. There were equivalent incidences of cases in favor of plaintiffs and defendants.

Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The tort liability system is intended to serve 3 functions: compensate patients who sustain injury from negligence, provide corrective justice, and deter negligence. Deterrence, in theory, occurs because clinicians know that they may experience adverse consequences if they negligently injure patients. OBJECTIVE: To review empirical findings regarding the association between malpractice liability risk (ie, the extent to which clinicians face the threat of being sued and having to pay damages) and health care quality and safety. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic search of multiple databases for studies published between January 1, 1990, and November 25, 2019, examining the relationship between malpractice liability risk measures and health outcomes or structural and process indicators of health care quality. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Information on the exposure and outcome measures, results, and acknowledged limitations was extracted by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic pooling was not possible due to variations in study designs; therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Associations between malpractice risk measures and health care quality and safety outcomes. Exposure measures included physicians' malpractice insurance premiums, state tort reforms, frequency of paid claims, average claim payment, physicians' claims history, total malpractice payments, jury awards, the presence of an immunity from malpractice liability, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Medicare malpractice geographic practice cost index, and composite measures combining these measures. Outcome measures included patient mortality; hospital readmissions, avoidable admissions, and prolonged length of stay; receipt of cancer screening; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators and other measures of adverse events; measures of hospital and nursing home quality; and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included; 28 examined hospital care only and 16 focused on obstetrical care. Among obstetrical care studies, 9 found no significant association between liability risk and outcomes (such as Apgar score and birth injuries) and 7 found limited evidence for an association. Among 20 studies of patient mortality in nonobstetrical care settings, 15 found no evidence of an association with liability risk and 5 found limited evidence. Among 7 studies that examined hospital readmissions and avoidable initial hospitalizations, none found evidence of an association between liability risk and outcomes. Among 12 studies of other measures (eg, patient safety indicators, process-of-care quality measures, patient satisfaction), 7 found no association between liability risk and these outcomes and 5 identified significant associations in some analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review, most studies found no association between measures of malpractice liability risk and health care quality and outcomes. Although gaps in the evidence remain, the available findings suggested that greater tort liability, at least in its current form, was not associated with improved quality of care.

What Have We Learned From Malpractice Claims Involving the Surgical Management of Benign Biliary Disease?: A 128 Million Dollar Question.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study the contributing factors and costs of malpractice claims involving the surgical management of benign biliary disease given the emotional, physical, and financial toll of these claims on patients, providers, and the healthcare system. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Cholecystectomy complications carry significant morbidity and rank among the leading sources of surgical malpractice claims. METHODS: Using the CRICO Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System database, representing approximately 30% of all paid and unpaid malpractice claims in the United States, 4081 closed claims filed against general surgeons from 1995 to 2015 were reviewed to isolate 745 cholecystectomy-related claims. A multivariable model was used to determine factors associated with claim outcome. RESULTS: The most common associated complications included bile duct injury (n = 397), bowel perforation (n = 96), and hemorrhage (n = 78). Bile duct injuries were recognized intraoperatively only 19% of the time and required biliary reconstruction surgery 77% of the time. The total cost for all claims over the study period was over $128 M and the median time from event to case close was over 3 years. 40% of claims resulted in patient payout; of these, most claims were settled out of court and the median cost per claim was $264,650. For the 60% of claims not resulting in patient payout, most cases were denied, dropped, or dismissed, yet still averaged over $15,000 per claim in legal and administrative fees. On multivariable analysis, bile duct injury, bowel perforation, and high clinical severity were associated with patient payout, while a resident or fellow being named in a claim was negatively associated with patient payout (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cholecystectomy-related claims are costly and time-consuming. Strategies that reduce the risk and aid in recognition of cholecystectomy complications, as well as advance support of patients and families after poor outcomes, may improve clinical care and reduce claim burden.