Prevalence of malpractice claims after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: analysis of 69,097 procedures from a national registry in Norway.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Systematic analysis of compensation claims following patient injuries is helpful in improving patient safety. The objective of the current study was to assess compensation claims after arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff ruptures, impingement, and acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis reported to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation and evaluate if there was regional variation on the risk of patient injuries leading to an accepted compensation claim. METHODS: Data from the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation and the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) from 2008 to 2018 were collected. Demographics (age and sex) and type of claim and reasons for accepted claims were obtained from the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation, while the number of arthroscopic procedures was collected from NPR. The treating institutions were grouped on geography according to Norway's four regional Health Trusts and private institutions and the effect of geography on the probability of an accepted claim was estimated. RESULTS: NPR registered 69,097 shoulder arthroscopies during the study period, of which 216 (0.3%) compensation claims were filed for patient injury. A total of 38% of the claims were accepted, representing 0.1% of the arthroscopic procedures. Infection (37.8%) was the most common reason for accepted claim, followed by no surgical indication (15.9%) and wrong surgical technique (12.2%). We found a statistically significantly increased odds ratio for a claim being accepted in both the smallest and largest regional Health Trusts compared to the other regional Health Trusts and private institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Compensation claims due to patient injury following shoulder arthroscopy are rare (0.3% of patients file a claim, of which a third is accepted (0.1% of all shoulder arthroscopy patients)). The most common reason for accepted claim was infection followed by lack of indication.