A Malpractice Claims Study of a Family Medicine Department: A 20-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: This study describes medical malpractice claims from a large academic family medicine department over 20 years. The intent of this investigation is to analyze trends within the department, seeking to better understand how to improve the quality of patient care. STUDY DESIGN: The Office of Patient Relations and Clinical Risk (PRCR) at University of Michigan Health maintains a centralized database of family medicine malpractice claims dating back to 1987. Records from 2000 to 2020 were requested from this database and received in a deidentified manner to protect patient confidentiality, and as such this study was exempt from IRB review. A total of 55 claims occurred during this time period. These claims were then analyzed in both qualitative and quantitative terms. RESULTS: Of the 55 claims, 87.3% involved adult patients; 76.5% of the claims occurred in the outpatient setting; 98.1% of the claims involved attending physicians and 26.9% involved resident physicians; 54.5% of the claims were closed without payment and 43.6% of the claims were settled. The average settled claim amount was $742,110.50 which dropped to $160,838.59 after excluding obstetric claims. In addition, 61.8% of the claims were related to diagnosis related allegations and 16.4% of the claims involved treatment related allegations. Primarily involving allegations of missed or delayed diagnoses of cancer, 29.1% of the claims were cancer related. While 79.2% of settled claims did not meet standard of care, 83.3% of the claims closed without payment did meet standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: Most claims involved adult patients, occurred in the outpatient setting, and involved diagnosis related allegations. Although representing a minority of the claims, obstetric claims made up most of the total settlement amount. Missed or delayed diagnoses of cancer were a common cause for claims, reinforcing the important role that primary care physicians have in supervising and administering preventative health care to patients. This study also emphasizes the value of peer review committees to help inform medical-legal consultants as evidenced by the high correlation between standard of care determination and final claims outcomes.

Heart Failure Due to Reduced Ejection Fraction: Medical Management.

Heart failure is an increasingly common condition resulting in high rates of morbidity and mortality. For patients who have heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, randomized clinical trials demonstrate consistent mortality benefit from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, direct-acting vasodilators, beta blockers, and aldosterone antagonists. Additionally, some data show benefits from two new classes of drugs: angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor and sinus node modulator. Diuretics and digoxin can be used as needed for symptom control. Statins are not recommended solely for treatment of heart failure. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers improve mortality and function in selected patients. For patients who have been hospitalized for heart failure, disease management programs and telemonitoring can reduce hospitalizations and mortality.

The status of adult inpatient care by family physicians at US academic medical centers and affiliated teaching hospitals 2003 to 2012: the impact of the hospitalist movement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Over the past 10--15 years, the number of hospitalists has grown from a few hundred to over 30,000, and hospitalists have assumed a greater proportion of the care of hospitalized patients. No existing studies report on the impact this movement has had on the characteristics of the hospital practice of family physicians in teaching hospitals. To explore this impact we examined the volume and scope of discharges by family physicians at teaching hospitals in 2003 and 2012, the most recent decade of hospitalist growth. We also compared the characteristics of family physicians' hospital practices in 2012 with hospitalists in 2012 to assess for differences in hospital performance. METHODS: We used the University Health Consortium (UHC) Clinical Database to capture adult non-pregnancy-related inpatient discharges in US teaching hospitals by family physicians and hospitalists in 2003 and 2012. We calculated the proportion of inpatient discharges by specialty in all UCH hospitals; did a qualitative comparison of frequent discharge diagnoses; and analyzed length of stay, case mix index, 7- and 30-day readmission rates, and mortality by specialty using UHCs risk adjustment methodology. RESULTS: The proportion of all inpatient discharges by family physicians in UHC hospitals was stable between 2003 and 2012 (2.7% versus 2.6%) though the volume increased. Over the same time, the proportion of discharges attributable to hospitalists increased (0.0% to 13.9%) with a concomitant decrease in proportion of discharges from general medicine (18.4% to 13.9%) and all other specialties (78.9% to 73.2%). Fourteen of the top 20 discharge diagnoses by family physicians from UHC hospitals were the same between 2003 and 2012. Family physicians and hospitalists shared 17 of the top 20 discharge diagnoses in 2012. Length of hospital stay was stable for family medicine across time and lower than that of hospitalists (4.5 versus 5.5 days; P<.001). Seven- and 30-day readmission rates for any cause were lower for hospitalists but there was no difference in either rate when limited to readmission for the same DRG. Hospitalists cared for a somewhat more complex patient mix. CONCLUSIONS: The growth of hospitalists has had little to no impact on the proportion of inpatient discharges in teaching hospitals by family physicians. Quality of care as judged by length of stay, mortality, and readmission rates was comparable between family physicians and hospitals in 2012.

Heart failure: clinical problem and management issues.

Heart failure (HF) often presents as dyspnea either with exertion and/or recumbency. Patients also experience dependent swelling and fatigue. Measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) identifies HF patients who may respond to pharmacologic therapy and/or electrophysiologic device implantation. Angiotension converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers, and aldosterone inhibitors can significantly lower the mortality and morbidity of HF in patients with an LVEF less than 35%. Cardiac defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers can also improve outcomes in selected patients with a decreased LVEF. The authors provide a guide for therapeutic decisions based on the inclusion criteria of the major clinical trials.

Pharmacologic management of heart failure caused by systolic dysfunction.

Heart failure caused by systolic dysfunction affects more than 5 million adults in the United States and is a common source of outpatient visits to primary care physicians. Mortality rates are high, yet a number of pharmacologic interventions may improve outcomes. Other interventions, including patient education, counseling, and regular self-monitoring, are critical, but are beyond the scope of this article. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers reduce mortality and should be administered to all patients unless contraindicated. Diuretics are indicated for symptomatic patients as needed for volume overload. Aldosterone antagonists and direct-acting vasodilators, such as isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine, may improve mortality in selected patients. Angiotensin receptor blockers can be used as an alternative therapy for patients intolerant of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and in some patients who are persistently symptomatic. Digoxin may improve symptoms and is helpful for persons with concomitant atrial fibrillation, but it does not reduce cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Serum digoxin levels should not exceed 1.0 ng per mL (1.3 nmol per L), especially in women.

Controversies in the use of beta blockers in heart failure.

Recent evidence from randomized controlled trials has provided compelling evidence to support the use of beta blockers in most patients with heart failure due to systolic dysfunction. There is little disagreement about the mortality benefit provided by adding beta blockers to standard therapy, which may include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and sometimes digoxin. A few areas are still controversial. The authors review the available literature encompassing four of those controversial areas: 1) the comparability among beta blockers; 2) the utility of beta blockers among patients with New York Heart Association class I and class IV heart failure symptoms; 3) the impact of race on the effectiveness of beta blockers; and 4) the safety and efficacy of beta blockers among patients on concomitant therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or spironolactone.