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.

Social inflation and health care risk management.

This paper examines the concept of social inflation as it affects medical malpractice insurance claims, a phenomenon that warrants monitoring by risk managers in health care. The authors define social inflation as the growth in the cost of insurance claims that exceeds general inflation. The authors use data aggregated from insurance company Annual Statements and from a national database of malpractice reports to estimate that social inflation added $2.4 billion to $3.5 billion to booked losses over the 10 years ending in 2021, which is between 8% and 11% of total losses. The authors' approach is to show growth in loss development factors, a metric that property/casualty actuaries use to estimate claim costs. This approach is explained in detail. The paper concludes with commentary on how risk managers can incorporate consideration of social inflation in their overall assessment of risk.

Legal Outcomes of Litigation After Iatrogenic Genitourinary Trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate plaintiff and defendant characteristics associated with iatrogenic genitourinary (GU) trauma litigation and outcomes of closed claims. METHODS: LexisNexis was queried in April 2023 using terms related to GU organs and injury, and manually reviewed for iatrogenic cases. Case details including defendant, organ involvement, and legal outcome were obtained. Multinomial regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with outcome. RESULTS: Four hundred ten cases involving 611 defendants were identified, with the ureter the most commonly affected organ (202/410, 49.3%). Most cases involved adult plaintiffs (380, 92.7%) and resulted in favor of the defense (227, 55.4%). Injuries resulted most frequently from gynecologic surgeries (179, 43.7%). Defendants were most commonly obstetricians/gynecologists (243/611, 39.8%) and urologists (168, 27.5%). Penile (OR 6.3 [95% CI 2.5-16.1]) and urethral (OR 4.8 [2.0-11.7]) injuries were associated with greater odds of a plaintiff verdict relative to ureter injury. A plaintiff verdict was also more likely when defendants were academic hospitals compared to individual practitioners (OR 4.3 [1.9-9.9]). In cases ruling in favor of the plaintiff, indemnity payments were larger when the defendants were comprised of individual practitioners compared to a hospital or medical group (median $549,613 vs $250,000, P <.001). CONCLUSION: Urologists may be involved in medical malpractice lawsuits for iatrogenic injury even when they are uninvolved in the index procedure. Most cases that reach litigation result in defense verdicts regardless of the GU organ injured. Defendant characteristics associated with plaintiff verdicts are more nuanced, and providers should be aware of potential downstream effects of litigation.

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.

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.

An Effective Program to Reduce Malpractice Claims and Payments in a Large Orthopaedic Practice.

BACKGROUND: High reliability in health care requires a balance between intentionally designed systems and individual professional accountability. One element of accountability includes a process for addressing clinicians whose practices are associated with a disproportionate share of patient complaints. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS), a tiered intervention model to reduce patient complaints about clinicians. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving a southeastern U.S. orthopaedic group practice. The study assessed the implementation of the PARS program and subsequent malpractice claims from 2004 to 2020. RESULTS: The implementation of PARS was associated with an 83% reduction in malpractice claims cost per high-risk clinician after intervention (p = 0.05; Wilcoxon rank sum test). The overall practice group experienced an 87% reduction in mean annual claims cost per clinician (p = 0.007; segmented regression). The successful adoption required essential elements such as PARS champions, peer messengers, an Office of Patient Affairs, and a clear statement of practice values and professionalism expectations at the time of onboarding. CONCLUSIONS: The PARS program was successfully adopted within a surgical specialty group as a part of ongoing risk prevention and management efforts. The period following PARS was associated with a retrospectively measured reduction in malpractice claim costs. The PARS program can be effectively implemented in a large, single-specialty orthopaedic practice setting and, although not necessarily causal, was, in our case, associated with a period of reduced malpractice claim costs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We have learned in previous research that there are clear links between professionalism and patient outcomes (e.g., surgical complications), but agree that the focus here on medical malpractice is not directly clinical.

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.

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.

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.

High-Risk Medicolegal Conditions in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

The top 5 reasons for pediatric malpractice are cardiac or cardiorespiratory arrest, appendicitis, disorder of male genital organs, encephalopathy, and meningitis. Malpractice is most likely to result from an "error in diagnosis." Claims involving a "major permanent injury" were more likely to pay out money, but of all claims, only 30% result in a monetary pay out. Consideration of "high-risk misses" may help to direct a history, examination, testing, and discharge instructions.

"There's got to be a better way": Global Perspectives of Medicolegal Environment and Neurosurgical Socioeconomics.

Neurosurgery is considered to have one of the greatest risks of medical malpractice claims. However, medicolegal issues in neurosurgery are often disregarded and underrated worldwide. Medical errors in the neurosurgical field can be attributed to multiple factors, including highly morbid pathologies, the technical difficulty of neurosurgical procedures, and the involvement and interaction of a multidisciplinary team in the care of neurosurgical patients. Health care providers worldwide are at risk of lawsuits, sometimes even when no deviation from the standard of care had occurred in a given case. Often, governments use additional tactics to decrease the burden on compensators and extrajudicial institutions and to decrease the court's flow of irrational litigation. Continuous amendments to health care acts and newer reforms to address these issues have materialized worldwide. In the present narrative review, we have reviewed the global perspectives of medicolegal issues, with a focus on neurosurgical discipline.

Medical professional liability in gastroenterology: definitions, trends, risk factors, provider behaviors, and implications.

Introduction: Medical professional liability (MPL) is a notable concern for many clinicians, especially in procedure-intensive specialties such as gastroenterology (GI). Comprehensive understanding of the basis for MPL claims can improve gastroenterologists' practice, lower MPL risk, and improve the overall patient care experience. This is particularly relevant in the setting of the increasing average compensation per paid GI-related MPL claim, and evolving healthcare delivery patterns and regulations.Areas Covered: MPL claims are generally grounded in the concept of negligence, a broad term that may apply to situations involving medical errors, ameliorable adverse events, inadequate informed consent and/or refusal, and numerous others. Though often not directly discussed in GI training or thereafter, there are various mechanisms and behaviors that can alter (decrease or increase) MPL risk. Additional dimensions of MPL include telemedicine, social media, and vicarious liability. We discuss these topics as well as takeaways to mitigate risk, thus reducing unnecessary clinician anxiety, promoting professional development, and optimizing healthcare outcomes.Expert Opinion: MPL risk is modifiable. Strong provider-patient relationships, through effective communication, patient reassurance, and enhanced informed consent, decrease risk, as does thorough documentation. Conversely, provider 'defensive' mechanisms intended to decrease MPL risk, including assurance and avoidance behaviors, may paradoxically increase it.

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.

Demandas por Malpraxis en Distintas Etapas del Tratamiento en Implantología Oral: una Revisión / Malpractice Claims at Different Stages of Treatment In Oral Implantology: a Review

Las demandas por malpraxis en odontología se han incrementado en los últimos años, siendo la implantología una de las especialidades más litigadas. Estas demandas en su mayoría se han caracterizado por tener un carácter multifactorial, con errores reportados en cualquiera de sus fases diagnósticas, terapéuticas o de mantenimiento. El propósito de esta revisión fue establecer la etapa del tratamiento implantológico en la que más se realizaron demandas por malpraxis, estableciendo una categorización de los errores detectados y de los daños asociados a cada una de las fases que incluye el tratamiento de rehabilitación mediante implantes dentales. Se realizó una revisión con búsqueda sistemática de los últimos 10 años en las bases Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, complementada con una búsqueda manual en revistas especializadas y en Google Scholar de artículos a partir de términos clave en idiomas español inglés y portugués. Se identificaron solo 3 artículos que cumplieron los criterios de selección, lo que afirma el concepto de escasa atención hacia esta eventualidad. Las demandas identificadas en esos reportes fueron analizadas sobre cuatro tipos de riesgo en implantología según la etapa del tratamiento en la que aparecen. La etapa quirúrgica fue identificada como la de mayor potencial de riesgo de originar eventos adversos y demandas asociadas. Se sugiere profundizar en los aspectos medicolegales propios y genéricos de la especialidad, como así también en el desarrollo de estrategias que prevengan sus eventos adversos y la judicialización asociada.

Dental malpractice claims have increased in recent years, and implantology is one of the most litigated specialties. Most of these claims have been characterized by having a multifactorial nature, with errors reported in any of their diagnostic, therapeutic or maintenance phases. The purpose of this review was to establish the stage of implant treatment in which the most malpractice claims were made, establishing a categorization of the errors detected and damages associated with each of the phases that includes rehabilitation treatment using dental implants. A review was carried out with a systematic search of the last 10 years in Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and SciELO databases, complemented with a manual search in specialized journals and in Google Academic, of articles from key words in Spanish, English and Portuguese languages. Only 3 articles were identified that met the selection criteria, which affirms the concept of scant attention given to this eventuality. The claims identified in these reports were analyzed on four types of risk in implantology according to the stage of treatment in which they appear. The surgical stage was identified as the one with the highest risk potential of causing adverse events and associated demands. It is suggested to deepen the specific and generic medico-legal aspects of the specialty, as well as in the development of strategies to prevent adverse events and the associated litigation.

Medico-legal implications for the colon perforation during colonoscopy.

Colon perforation is the most serious complication of colonoscopy, and tends to be considered as malpractice. The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics and causes of medical accidents by analyzing lawsuit cases on colon perforation during colonoscopy. We collected judgment results that were ruled from 2005 to 2015 using the keyword 'colonoscopy' in the 'Korea's Written Judgment Public Reading System' of the Supreme Court, and extracted the cases of colon perforation. Characteristics of medical accidents and the decisions of courts were analyzed from written judgments. Twenty-two lawsuits were analyzed. Most cases were ruled in favor of the plaintiff (n = 20). The allegations against defendants, as filed by the plaintiffs, were performance error (n = 22), improper monitoring after colonoscopy (n = 7), and a lack of informed consent (n = 8). The median compensation was 9335.47 US dollars; this is about 130 times the cost of a single colonoscopy in Korea. The greater the intestinal damage, the greater the amount of compensation (p = 0.016). The time interval from procedure to diagnosis of perforation was most frequently 24 h later (n = 9). It is important to educate patients completely about the symptoms of colon perforation and to guide them to contact medical institutions immediately when symptoms occur. In addition, doctors should explain sufficiently the possibility of perforation before colonoscopy to the patient, and not the caregiver, and get informed consent.