Oncologic Errors in Diagnostic Radiology: A 10-Year Analysis Based on Medical Malpractice Claims.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively analyze the nature and extent of oncology-related errors accounting for malpractice allegations in diagnostic radiology. METHODS: The Comparative Benchmarking System of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company, a database containing roughly 30% of medical malpractice claims in the United States, was searched retrospectively for the period 2008 to 2017. Claims naming radiology as a primary service were identified and were stratified and compared by oncologic versus nononcologic status, allegation type (diagnostic versus nondiagnostic), and imaging modality. RESULTS: Over the 10-year period, radiology was the primary responsible service for 3.9% of all malpractice claims (2,582 of 66,061) and 12.8% of claims with diagnostic allegations (1,756 of 13,695). Oncology (neoplasms) accounted for 44.0% of radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, a larger share than any other category of medical condition. Among radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, high-severity harm occurred in 79% of oncologic but just 42% of nononcologic cases. Of all oncologic radiology cases, 97.4% had diagnostic allegations, and just 55.0% of nononcologic radiology cases had diagnostic allegations. Imaging misinterpretation was a contributing factor for a large majority (80.7% [623 of 772]) of oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations. The modalities most commonly used in oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations involving misinterpretation were mammography and CT. CONCLUSION: Oncology represents the largest source of radiology malpractice cases with diagnostic allegations. Oncologic radiology malpractice cases are more likely than nononcologic radiology cases to be due to diagnostic errors. Furthermore, compared with those that are nononcologic, oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations are more likely to be associated with high-severity harm. Efforts are warranted to reduce misinterpretations of oncologic imaging.

Breakdowns in the initial patient-provider encounter are a frequent source of diagnostic error among ischemic stroke cases included in a large medical malpractice claims database.

Background Misdiagnosis of dangerous cerebrovascular disease is a substantial public health problem. We sought to identify and describe breakdowns in the diagnostic process among patients with ischemic stroke to facilitate future improvements in diagnostic accuracy. Methods We performed a retrospective, descriptive study of medical malpractice claims housed in the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Strategies Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) database from 1/1/2006 to 1/1/2016 involving ischemic stroke patients. Baseline claimant demographics, clinical setting, primary allegation category, and outcomes were abstracted. Among cases with a primary diagnosis-related allegation, we detail presenting symptoms and diagnostic breakdowns using CRICO's proprietary taxonomy. Results A total of 478 claims met inclusion criteria; 235 (49.2%) with diagnostic error. Diagnostic errors originated in the emergency department (ED) in 46.4% (n = 109) of cases, outpatient clinic in 27.7% (n = 65), and inpatient setting in 25.1% (n = 59). Across care-settings, the most frequent process breakdown was in the initial patient-provider encounter [76.2% (n = 179 cases)]. Failure to assess, communicate, and respond to ongoing symptoms was the component of the patient-provider encounter most frequently identified as a source of misdiagnosis in the ED. Exclusively non-traditional presenting symptoms occurred in 35.7% (n = 84), mixed traditional and non-traditional symptoms in 30.6% (n = 72), and exclusively traditional in 23.8% (n = 56) of diagnostic error cases. Conclusions Among ischemic stroke patients, breakdowns in the initial patient-provider encounter were the most frequent source of diagnostic error. Targeted interventions should focus on the initial diagnostic encounter, particularly for ischemic stroke patients with atypical symptoms.

An Examination of Medical Malpractice Claims Involving Physician Trainees.

PURPOSE: To identify patient-, provider-, and claim-related factors of medical malpractice claims in which physician trainees were directly involved in the harm events. METHOD: The authors performed a case-control study using medical malpractice claims closed between 2012-2016 and contributed to the Comparative Benchmarking System database by teaching hospitals. Using the service extender flag, they classified claims as cases if physician trainees were directly involved in the harm events. They classified claims as controls if they were from the same facilities, but trainees were not directly involved in the harm events. They performed multivariable regression with predictor variables being patient and provider characteristics. The outcome was physician trainee involvement in harm events. RESULTS: From the original pool of 30,973 claims, there were 581 cases and 2,610 controls. The majority of cases involved residents (471, 81%). Cases had a statistically significant higher rate of having a trainee named as defendants than controls (184, 32% vs 233, 9%; P < .001). The most common final diagnosis for cases was puncture or laceration during surgery (62, 11%). Inadequate supervision was a contributing factor in 140 (24%) cases overall, with the majority (104, 74%) of these claims being procedure related. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that trainees were most likely to be involved in harm events in specialties such as oral surgery/dentistry and obstetrics-gynecology (OR = 7.99, 95% CI 2.93, 21.83 and OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.24, 2.66, respectively), when performing procedures (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.27, 1.96), or when delivering care in the emergency room (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.43, 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Among claims involving physician trainees, procedures were common and often associated with inadequate supervision. Training directors of surgical specialties can use this information to improve resident supervision policies. The goal is to reduce the likelihood of future harm events.

Medical Malpractice Involving Pulmonary/Critical Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice data can be leveraged to understand specialty-specific risk. METHODS: Malpractice claims were examined from the Comparative Benchmarking System (2007-2016), a national database containing > 30% of claims data in the United States. Claims were identified with either internal medicine or pulmonary/critical care (PCC) physicians as the primary provider involved in the harm. Claim characteristics were compared according to specialty and care setting (inpatient vs outpatient), and multiple regression analysis was performed to predict claim payment. RESULTS: Claims involving PCC physicians differed from those involving internal medicine physicians in terms of harm severity, allegation, final diagnosis, procedure involvement, payment rate, and contributing factors. The majority of claims involving PCC physicians resulted from inpatient care (63%), of which only 26% occurred delivering intensive care. Eighty-one percent were from harm events that resulted in death/permanent injury. The most common diagnosis was laceration during a procedure for inpatient claims (6%) and lung cancer for outpatient claims (28%). Thirty-one percent of claims overall involved procedures. Although only 26% were paid, the median indemnity per paid claim of $285,769 ranked PCC as the twelfth highest of 69 specialties. The two variables associated with indemnity payment were outpatient care (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.01-2.86) and temporary harm (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice claims involving PCC physicians were distinct from claims involving internal medicine physicians. Although only one-quarter of claims was paid, the indemnity per claim was high among specialties. Specialty-specific prevention strategies must be developed to mitigate both patient harm and provider malpractice risk.