Defensive medicine among antibiotic stewards: the international ESCMID AntibioLegalMap survey.

Objectives: To investigate fear of legal claims and defensive behaviours among specialists in infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM) and to identify associated demographic and professional characteristics. Methods: AntibioLegalMap was an international cross-sectional internet-based survey targeting specialists in ID and CM. Three variables were explored: fear of legal liability in antibiotic prescribing/advising on antibiotic prescription; defensive behaviours in antibiotic prescribing; and defensive behaviours in advising. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors significantly associated with each of the three variables. Results: Eight hundred and thirty individuals from 74 countries participated. Only 0.4% (3/779) had any kind of condemnation for malpractice related to antibiotic prescription. Concerning the fear of liability, 21.2% (164/774) of respondents said they never worried, 45.1% (349/774) sometimes worried and 28.6% (221/774) frequently worried when prescribing/advising on antibiotic prescription. Being female, younger than or equal to 35 years and aware of previous cases of litigation were independently associated with fear. Most respondents (85.0%, 525/618) reported some defensive behaviour in antibiotic prescribing. These behaviours were independently associated with being younger than or equal to 35 years and sometimes or often worried about liability. Similarly, 76.4% (505/661) reported defensive behaviours in advising. These behaviours were associated with being sometimes or often worried about liability. The preferred measures to reduce fear and defensive behaviours were having local guidelines and sharing decisions through teamwork. Conclusions: A significant proportion of specialists in ID and CM reported some form of defensive behaviour in prescribing or advising to prescribe antibiotics. Defensive medicine should be considered when implementing antibiotic stewardship programmes.

Defensive medicine among obstetricians and gynaecologists in Turkey.

In recent years, there has been a remarkable increase in medical malpractice litigations against OB/GYNs in Turkey and globally. This high litigation atmosphere may have changed attitudes, behaviour and practice of OB/GYNs. In the current study, opinions and attitudes of OB/GYNs regarding defensive medicine and to what extent they practice it were investigated. One hundred and eight OB/GYNs participated in the study. All participants found obstetrics and gynaecology riskier when compared with other medical branches and reported that they were increasingly practising defensive medicine. The majority of the OB/GYNs stated that they abstained from many risky interventions and expressed their belief that the high caesarean section (C-section) rate was associated with medico-legal concerns. The majority of the participants supported enacting of a specific medical malpractice law and supported the establishment of medically specialised courts. These regulations demanded by OB/GYNs should be taken into account by health authorities. Impact statement What is already known on this subject: In recent years, there has been a remarkable increase in medical malpractice litigations against OB/GYNs in Turkey and globally. Turkey has serious problems with the high C-section rate, which has been suggested to be related to medicolegal issues in a previous research. Fifty-one percent of babies, namely most of them, are delivered via C-section. There is no specific medical malpractice law and medically specialised court in Turkey. What the results of this study add: It seems like there is a professional liability crisis among OB/GYNs in Turkey. OB/GYNs reported that they were increasingly practising defensive medicine, and stated that they abstained from many risky interventions. A high C-section rate was found to be related to medicolegal concerns in OB/GYNs' perspective in the current study. OB/GYNs demanded some reasonable regulations. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research: Regulations demanded by OB/GYNs, which were probed in the current study, such as enacting a specific medical malpractice law and establishment of a medically specialised court, should be taken into account by health authorities in Turkey. The findings of the current study is believed to produce important results for the success of Health transformation programme put into practice in Turkey, which was not able to stop increasing C-section rates. Studies evaluating the direct or indirect costs related to defensive medicine practices of OB/GYNs in Turkey should be performed in subsequent research.

The effect of malpractice reform on emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Many believe that fear of malpractice lawsuits drives physicians to order otherwise unnecessary care and that legal reforms could reduce such wasteful spending. Emergency physicians practice in an information-poor, resource-rich environment that may lend itself to costly defensive practice. Three states, Texas (in 2003), Georgia (in 2005), and South Carolina (in 2005), enacted legislation that changed the malpractice standard for emergency care to gross negligence. We investigated whether these substantial reforms changed practice. METHODS: Using a 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we identified all emergency department visits to hospitals in the three reform states and in neighboring (control) states from 1997 through 2011. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared patient-level outcomes, before and after legislation, in reform states and control states. We controlled for characteristics of the patients, time-invariant hospital characteristics, and temporal trends. Outcomes were policy-attributable changes in the use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), per-visit emergency department charges, and the rate of hospital admissions. RESULTS: For eight of the nine state-outcome combinations tested, no policy-attributable reduction in the intensity of care was detected. We found no reduction in the rates of CT or MRI utilization or hospital admission in any of the three reform states and no reduction in charges in Texas or South Carolina. In Georgia, reform was associated with a 3.6% reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 6.2) in per-visit emergency department charges. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation that substantially changed the malpractice standard for emergency physicians in three states had little effect on the intensity of practice, as measured by imaging rates, average charges, or hospital admission rates. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations and others.).

Malpractice lawsuits and change in work in Japanese surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The risk of lawsuits causes surgeons stress and is associated with defensive medicine. It is possible that some surgeons withdraw from surgery because of malpractice lawsuits, although the actual impact of lawsuits is not clear. This study evaluated changes in work and medical practices involved in lawsuits, as well as support they receive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 115 surgeons who had been involved in lawsuits in Japan were eligible to participate. Participants were surveyed about changes in work because of lawsuits, the influence of lawsuits on medical care, defensive medicine, and their opinions on support they received. RESULTS: A total of 30 surveys were collected. Six surgeons changed work: five had lost their lawsuits and the remaining one had a settlement. Surgeons felt that lawsuits imposed a time burden (100%) and caused emotional strain (96%). Surgeons made a number of conscious changes to their medical care after lawsuits, including over care (27%) and a hesitation to use high-risk treatments (39%). They had positive opinions of support they received from the legal counsel (89%), the hospital director (73%), supervisors (65%), and colleagues (57%). Surgeons who changed work were significantly more likely to engage in defensive medicine, including over care and hesitation, than those who had not changed work. Support from the legal counsel was negatively correlated with over care and hesitation. CONCLUSIONS: Given the significant influence of lawsuits on surgeons' practice, medical institutions should provide support to surgeons. Future research is needed to confirm whether legal counsel may prevent defensive medicine.

On defensive decision making: how doctors make decisions for their patients.

BACKGROUND: In the past decade, the number of lawsuits for medical malpractice has risen significantly. This could affect the way doctors make decisions for their patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether and why doctors practice defensive medicine with their patients. DESIGN: A questionnaire study was conducted in general practice departments of eight metropolitan hospitals in Spain, between January and February 2010. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eighty general practitioners (48% men; mean age 52 years) with an average of 15.3 years of experience and their 80 adult patients (42% men; mean age 56 years) participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire involving choices between a risky and a conservative treatment. One group of doctors made decisions for their patients. Another group of doctors predicted what their patients would decide for themselves. Finally, all doctors and patients made decisions for themselves and described the factors they thought influenced their decisions. RESULTS: Doctors selected much more conservative medical treatments for their patients than for themselves. Most notably, they did so even when they accurately predicted that the patients would select riskier treatments. When asked about the reasons for their decisions, most doctors (93%) reported fear of legal consequences. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Doctors' decisions for their patients are strongly influenced by concerns of possible legal consequences. Patients therefore cannot blindly follow their doctor's advice. Our study, however, suggests a plausible method that patients could use to get around this problem: They could simply ask their doctor what he or she would do in the patient's situation.

The practice of defensive medicine among hospital doctors in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Defensive medicine is defined as a doctor's deviation from standard practice to reduce or prevent complaints or criticism. The objectives of this study were to assess the prevalence of the practice of defensive medicine in the UK among hospital doctors and the factors affecting it. METHODS: A quantitative study was designed, with a detailed seventeen point questionnaire. Defensive medicine practice was assessed and tested against four factors age, gender, specialty and grade. Three hundred hospital doctors from three UK hospitals received the questionnaire. RESULTS: Two hundred and four (68%) out of 300 hospital doctors responded to the survey. Seventy eight percent reported practicing one form or another of defensive medicine. Ordering unnecessary tests is the commonest form of defensive medicine reported by 59% of the respondents. This is followed by unnecessary referral to other specialties (55%). While only 9% of the sampled doctors would refuse to treat high risk patients, double this number would avoid high risks procedures all together (21%). A linear regression module has shown that only senior grade was associated with less practice of defensive medicine. CONCLUSION: Defensive medical practice is common among the doctors who responded to the survey. Senior grade is associated with less practice of defensive medicine.

Defensive medicine in the emergency department: increasing health care costs without increasing quality?

Defensive medicine is taxing our health care system more and more each year. Emergency departments are at more risk of malpractice claims due to their quick pace, lack of patient-physician relationship, and patient expectations and demands. It can be assumed that this results in unnecessary, expensive care. There are health risks and monetary and emotional consequences that result from the use of defensive medicine. Eradication of defensive medicine can begin with the use of evidence-based medicine and by ensuring that hospital policies and procedures are followed.

A modified no-fault malpractice system can resolve multiple healthcare system deficiencies.

Medical professional liability in the United States, as measured by total premiums paid by physicians and healthcare facilities, costs approximately $30 billion a year in direct expenses, less than 2% of the entire annual healthcare expenditures. Only a fraction of those dollars reach patients who are negligently injured. Nonetheless, the tort system has far-reaching effects that create substantial indirect costs. Medical malpractice litigation is pervasive and physicians practice defensively to avoid being named in a suit. Those extra expenditures provide little value to patients. Despite an elaborate existing tort system, patient safety remains a vexing problem. Many injured patients are denied access to timely, reasonable remedies. We propose a no-fault system supplemented by a variation of the traditional tort system whereby physicians are incentivized to follow evidence-based guidelines. The proposed system would guarantee a substantial decrease in, but not elimination of, litigation. The system would lower professional liability premiums. Injured patients would ordinarily be compensated with no-fault disability and life insurance proceeds. To the extent individual physicians pose a recurrent danger, their care would be reviewed on an administrative level. Savings would be invested in health information technology and purchase of insurance coverage for the uninsured. We propose a financial model based on publicly accessible sources.

The impact of tort reform on defensive medicine, quality of care, and physician supply: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of tort reform on defensive medicine, quality of care, and physician supply. DATA SOURCES: Empirical, peer-reviewed English-language studies in the MEDLINE and HeinOnline databases that evaluated the association between tort reform and our study outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Title and abstract screening was followed by full-text screening of relevant citations. We created evidence tables, grouped studies by outcome, and qualitatively compared the findings of included studies. We assigned a higher rating to study designs that controlled for unobservable sources of confounding. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-seven studies met screening criteria. Caps on damages, collateral-source rule reform, and joint-and-several liability reform were the most common types of tort reform evaluated in the included studies. We found that caps on noneconomic damages were associated with a decrease in defensive medicine, increase in physician supply, and decrease in health care spending, but had no effect on quality of care. Other reform approaches did not have a clear or consistent impact on study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that traditional tort reform methods may not be sufficient for health reform and policy makers should evaluate and incorporate newer approaches.

Drivers and strategies for avoiding overuse. A cross-sectional study to explore the experience of Spanish primary care providers handling uncertainty and patients' requests.

OBJECTIVES: Identify the sources of overuse from the point of view of the Spanish primary care professionals, and analyse the frequency of overuse due to pressure from patients in addition to the responses when professionals face these demands. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: A non-randomised sample of 2201 providers (general practitioners, paediatricians and nurses) was recruited during the survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency, causes and responsibility for overuse, the frequency that patients demand unnecessary tests or procedures, the profile of the most demanding patients, and arguments for dissuading the patient. RESULTS: In all, 936 general practitioners, 682 paediatricians and 286 nurses replied (response rate 18.6%). Patient requests (67%) and defensive medicine (40%) were the most cited causes of overuse. Five hundred and twenty-two (27%) received requests from their patients almost every day for unnecessary tests or procedures, and 132 (7%) recognised granting the requests. The lack of time in consultation, and information about new medical advances and treatments that patients could find on printed and digital media, contributed to the professional's inability to adequately counter this pressure by patients. Clinical safety (49.9%) and evidence (39.4%) were the arguments that dissuaded patients from their requests the most. Cost savings was not a convincing argument (6.8%), above all for paediatricians (4.3%). General practitioners resisted more pressure from their patients (x2=88.8, P<0.001, percentage difference (PD)=17.0), while nurses admitted to carrying out more unnecessary procedures (x2=175.7, P<0.001, PD=12.3). CONCLUSION: Satisfying the patient and patient uncertainty about what should be done and defensive medicine practices explains some of the frequent causes of overuse. Safety arguments are useful to dissuade patients from their requests.

Malpractice Concerns, Defensive Medicine, and the Histopathology Diagnosis of Melanocytic Skin Lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of malpractice concerns on pathologists' use of defensive medicine and interpretations of melanocytic skin lesions (MSLs) is unknown. METHODS: A total of 207 pathologists interpreting MSLs responded to a survey about past involvement in malpractice litigation, influence of malpractice concerns on diagnosis, and use of assurance behaviors (defensive medicine) to alleviate malpractice concerns. Assurance behaviors included requesting second opinions, additional slides, additional sampling, and ordering specialized tests. RESULTS: Of the pathologists, 27.5% reported that malpractice concerns influenced them toward a more severe MSL diagnosis. Nearly all (95.2%) pathologists reported practicing at least one assurance behavior due to malpractice concerns, and this practice was associated with being influenced toward a more severe MSL diagnosis (odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-5.26). CONCLUSIONS: One of four US skin pathologists upgrade MSL diagnosis due to malpractice concerns, and nearly all practice assurance behaviors. Assurance behaviors are associated with rendering a more severe MSL diagnosis.

Do tort reforms impact the incidence of birth by cesarean section? A reassessment.

Investigations into the existence and impact of defensive medicine in obstetrics have produced mixed and often conflicting implications. The most widely-cited and accepted results in this literature find that less severe malpractice environments cause an increase in the use of cesarean section. This has been interpreted as "offensive medicine"; taking advantage of lenient malpractice environments by providing unnecessary services in order to raise revenue. In this article we show that an assumption concerning births with an unknown method of delivery, which is not explicitly stated in the literature, is pivotal in obtaining these results. Using data on tort reforms and birth outcomes from 1989 to 2001 in 24 US states, we show that for the 98.4% of births with a confirmed method of delivery, the estimated effects of tort reform on C-section rates are insignificant. Therefore, without this assumption, there is little evidence to support an interpretation of offensive medicine.

Cross-sectional survey on defensive practices and defensive behaviours among Israeli psychiatrists.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatry is a low-risk specialisation; however, there is a steady increase in malpractice claims against psychiatrists. Defensive psychiatry (DP) refers to any action undertaken by a psychiatrist to avoid malpractice liability that is not for the sole benefit of the patient's mental health and well-being. The objectives of this study were to assess the scope of DP practised by psychiatrists and to understand whether awareness of DP correlated with defensive behaviours. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 213 Israeli psychiatry residents and certified psychiatrists during May and June 2015 regarding demographic data and experience with malpractice claims, medicolegal literature and litigation. Four clinical scenarios represented defensive behaviours and reactions (feelings and actions) to malpractice claims. RESULTS: Forty-four (20.6%) certified psychiatrists and four (1.9%) residents were directly involved in malpractice claims, while 132 (62.1%) participants admitted to practising DP. Residents acknowledged the practice of DP more than did senior psychiatrists (p=0.038).Awareness of DP correlated with unnecessary hospitalisation of suicidal patients, increased unnecessary follow-up visits and prescribing smaller drug dosages than required for pregnant women and elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that DP is well established in the routine clinical daily practice of psychiatrists. Further studies are needed to reveal whether DP effectively protects psychiatrists from malpractice suits or, rather, if it impedes providing quality psychiatric care and represents an economic burden that leads to more harm for the patient.

The determinants of defensive medicine practices in Belgium.

In 2010 the Belgian government introduced a low cost administrative procedure for compensating medical injuries to overcome the major shortcomings of the existing tort system. This paper examines, for the first time, to what extent this reform had an impact on physician specialists' defensive practices and what are the relevant determinants affecting physicians' clinical decision making. Based on a survey of 508 physicians, we find evidence of a relatively modest increase in defensive practices among physicians in various specialties. In general, 14% of the respondents, who were aware of the reform, reported to have increased their overall defensive behaviour, while respectively 18 and 13% altered their assurance and avoidance behaviour. Commonly used physician characteristics, such as claims experience and gender, have a similar impact on defensive medicine as documented in existing literature. Furthermore, the determinant physician's access to an incident reporting system is found to have a significant impact on most of the defensive medicine measures. Health care institutions may therefore play an important role in controlling and reducing physicians' defensive practices.

Prevalence and costs of defensive medicine: a national survey of Italian physicians.

Objective To identify the prevalence of the practice of defensive medicine among Italian hospital physicians, its costs and the reasons for practising defensive medicine and possible solutions to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. Methods Cross-sectional web survey. Main outcome measures Number of physicians reporting having engaged in any defensive medicine behaviour in the previous year. Results A total of 1313 physicians completed the survey. Ninety-five per cent believed that defensive medicine would increase in the near future. The practice of defensive medicine accounted for approximately 10% of total annual Italian national health expenditure. Conclusions Defensive medicine is a significant factor in health care costs without adding any benefit to patients. The economic burden of defensive medicine on health care systems should provide a substantial stimulus for a prompt review of this situation in a time of economic crisis. Malpractice reform, together with a systematic use of evidence-based clinical guidelines, is likely to be the most effective way to reduce defensive medicine.

Defensive Medicine in U.S. Spine Neurosurgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To compare defensive practices of U.S. spine and nonspine neurosurgeons in the context of state medical liability risk. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Defensive medicine is a commonly reported and costly phenomenon in neurosurgery. Although state liability risk is thought to contribute greatly to defensive practice, variation within neurosurgical specialties has not been well explored. METHODS: A validated, online survey was sent via email to 3344 members of the American Board of Neurological Surgeons. The instrument contained eight question domains: surgeon characteristics, patient characteristics, practice type, insurance type, surgeon liability profile, basic surgeon reimbursement, surgeon perceptions of medical legal environment, and the practice of defensive medicine. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 30.6% (n = 1026), including 499 neurosurgeons performing mainly spine procedures (48.6%). Spine neurosurgeons had a similar average practice duration as nonspine neurosurgeons (16.6 vs 16.9 years, P = 0.64) and comparable lifetime case volume (4767 vs 4,703, P = 0.71). The average annual malpractice premium for spine neurosurgeons was similar to nonspine neurosurgeons ($104,480.52 vs $101,721.76, P = 0.60). On average, spine neurosurgeons had a significantly higher rate of ordering labs, medications, referrals, procedures, and imaging solely for liability concerns compared with nonspine neurosurgeons (89.2% vs 84.6%, P = 0.031). Multivariate analysis revealed that spine neurosurgeons were roughly 3 times more likely to practice defensively compared with nonspine neurosurgeons (odds ratio, OR = 2.9, P = 0.001) when controlling for high-risk procedures (OR = 7.8, P < 0.001), annual malpractice premium (OR = 3.3, P = 0.01), percentage of patients publicly insured (OR = 1.1, P = 0.80), malpractice claims in the last 3 years (OR = 1.13, P = 0.71), and state medical-legal environment (OR = 1.3, P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: State-based medical legal environment is not a significant driver of increased defensive medicine associated with neurosurgical spine procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.