The law code of ChatGPT and artificial intelligence-how to shield plastic surgeons and reconstructive surgeons against Justitia's sword.

Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT 4 (OpenAI), Claude 2 (Anthropic), and Llama 2 (Meta AI) have emerged as novel technologies to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into everyday work. LLMs in particular, and AI in general, carry infinite potential to streamline clinical workflows, outsource resource-intensive tasks, and disburden the healthcare system. While a plethora of trials is elucidating the untapped capabilities of this technology, the sheer pace of scientific progress also takes its toll. Legal guidelines hold a key role in regulating upcoming technologies, safeguarding patients, and determining individual and institutional liabilities. To date, there is a paucity of research work delineating the legal regulations of Language Models and AI for clinical scenarios in plastic and reconstructive surgery. This knowledge gap poses the risk of lawsuits and penalties against plastic surgeons. Thus, we aim to provide the first overview of legal guidelines and pitfalls of LLMs and AI for plastic surgeons. Our analysis encompasses models like ChatGPT, Claude 2, and Llama 2, among others, regardless of their closed or open-source nature. Ultimately, this line of research may help clarify the legal responsibilities of plastic surgeons and seamlessly integrate such cutting-edge technologies into the field of PRS.

Wellness Strategies Among Bad Outcomes and Complications.

Surgery of the chest is high stakes, and adverse events are common. Given the frequency and severity of such complications, cardiothoracic surgeons are at particularly high risk of becoming second victims. Even though our primary commitment as doctors is to take care of our patients, surgeons may fall into the emotional and intellectual trap of taking on the whole responsibility of a patient's poor outcome. This viewpoint may lead the physician to develop a heightened self-doubt, greater insecurity, and imposter syndrome, further affecting their ability to prevent complications and tackle difficult cases in the future.

Neurosurgical Malpractice Litigation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgery has 1 of the highest risks for medical malpractice claims. We reviewed the factors associated with neurosurgical malpractice claims and litigation in the United States and reported the outcomes through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We sought to identify pertinent studies containing information about medical malpractice claims and outcomes involving neurosurgeons in the United States. RESULTS: We identified 15 retrospective studies spanning from 2002 to 2023 that reviewed over 7890 malpractice claims involving practicing neurosurgeons in the United States. Disparities were evident in neurosurgical litigation, with 474 cases linked to brain-related surgeries and a larger proportion, 1926 cases, tied to spine surgeries. The most commonly filed claims were intraprocedural errors (37.4%), delayed diagnoses (32.1%), and failure to treat (28.8%). Less frequently filed claims included misdiagnosis or choice of incorrect procedure (18.4%), occurrence of death (17.3%), test misinterpretation (14.4%), failure to appropriately refer patients for evaluation/treatment (14.3%), unnecessary surgical procedures (13.3%), and lack of informed consent (8.3%). The defendant was favored in 44.3% of claims, while in 31.3% of lawsuits were dropped, 17.7% of verdicts favored the plaintiff, and 16.6% reached an out of court settlement. Only 3.5% of lawsuits found both parties liable. CONCLUSION: Neurosurgery is a high-risk specialty with 1 of the highest rates of malpractice claims. Spine claims had a significantly higher rate of filed malpractice claims, while cranial malpractice claims were associated with higher litigation compensation. Predictably, spinal cord injuries play a crucial role in predicting litigation. Importantly, nonsurgical treatments are also a common source of liability in neurosurgical practice.

Arthroscopy in India Through the Medicolegal Lens: A Comprehensive Review.

Introduction: With the increasing number of Arthroscopic surgeries, comes with it, the undesirable problem of litigation associated with it. Arthroscopy does possess certain unique aspects which need to be understood from the legal point of view as well. Materials and Methods: We obtained information on specific medico-legal cases involving arthroscopy from books and websites containing collections of medico-legal judgments in Indian legal courts, consumer dispute redressal forums at the state and national levels, and state medical councils.. Results: We assimilated and analysed all this information, combined it with our experience in the field of medical law, and have provided practical, enforceable ways to decrease the medicolegal risk for arthroscopy surgeons. Conclusion: This review provides a comprehensive overview of pressing issues in relation to the medicolegal aspects of arthroscopic surgery.

Characteristics of Malpractice Litigation Involving Pathological Autopsies Themselves in Japan: A Database Analysis.

Introduction: Following recently increased public awareness, the number of medical malpractice litigation cases in Japan has increased in all fields of health care. A pathological autopsy is important for medical practice but has not yet been subject to much litigation. Methods: This study presents a review of all civil lawsuits involving pathological autopsies identified in a Japanese database of lawsuits (Westlaw.com). The basic characteristics of cases, the main issues in each case, results, and reasons for the results given by the court were examined. Results: Over 500 cases were examined, among which four autopsy-related negligence lawsuits were retained for analysis. Judgments in these cases were delivered between February 2000 and February 2017. Two judgments were regarding the same case, which was discussed in two different civil procedures (monetary damages and request to return the specimens of patients to relatives). This included three factual cases, which were all civil. Each case was brought by close relatives, and all defendants were hospitals. The main issues were informed consent and the accuracy of autopsy results in two and one cases, respectively. The issues related to informed consent were the need for informed consent to take a specimen and the scope of informed consent. Conclusions: This study describes the basic characteristics of malpractice lawsuits related to autopsies. Lawsuits related to pathological autopsies seem to be relatively rare in Japan.

Asset Protection for Dermatologists: An Overview on Shielding Wealth from Potential Liability.

The reality of dermatology practice in the 21st century includes the potential for lawsuits and liability. While medical malpractice may be top-of-mind, there are a host of liability risks beyond malpractice-from employee claims and fiduciary liability for the practice retirement plan to premises liability and HIPAA violations-as well as potential personal liability for rental properties, car accidents (for self and children), outside businesses, personal guarantees and more. This article outlines the leading tools dermatologists can utilize to better shield their assets from potential liability-including exempt assets, co-ownership forms, and legal tools, such as limited liability companies and trusts.

Medico-Legal Implications and Regulatory Frameworks of Regenerative Orthopaedics.

Regenerative orthopaedics has revolutionized traditional medicine, which represents a giant leap in science and research. The knowledge of the medico-legal implications and regulatory framework of this branch is vital for clinicians and researchers to go forward smoothly. This systematic review of the literature should shed light on these considerations and provide a comprehensive knowledge of the various implications and laws governing practice and research. The wide plethora of knowledge in the use of regenerative orthopaedics should be complemented by updated regulations and clinicians' grasp of knowledge on regenerative medicine. The review focused on peer-reviewed published articles concerned with the topic and outlined common medico-legal issues and the current regulatory frameworks in various countries. The articles suggest that developed nations like the US have faced several lawsuits in this field, and a few countries in Europe like Italy and Germany, which were frontrunners in this field based on research, have fallen back due to emerging legal and regulatory policies. Undoubtedly, regenerative orthopaedics holds the key to future orthopaedics, but the world is skeptical of this concept, and laws and regulatory frameworks can curb it if not guided well. In India, this field has received prime attention, but at a slow pace when compared to the laws. After reviewing 113 articles, we analysed eight critically in this systematic review to emphasize the comparative global frameworks, daily medico-legal problems, and solutions for the branch of regenerative orthopaedics.

Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Involving Pediatric Trainees.

Introduction Pediatric medical trainees, like other medical professionals, can be held accountable for their actions and may be included in malpractice lawsuits. The aim of this study was to investigate the sources of malpractice cases involving pediatric trainees in order to inform the development of strategies to protect against such incidents. Methods LexisNexis, an online public legal research database containing records from the United States, was retrospectively reviewed for malpractice cases involving pediatric interns, residents, or fellows from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021. Cases were included if malpractice occurred following the delivery of a newborn through the care of young adults up to age 21. Results A total of 56 cases were included, consisting of 10 pediatric interns, 43 second- or third-year residents, and 11 pediatric fellows as defendants. Seventeen cases (30.4%) led to patient mortality. Incorrect diagnosis or treatment was claimed in 45 cases (80.4%), delay in evaluation in 24 (42.9%), failure to supervise trainee in 22 (39.3%), trainee inexperience in 21 (37.5%), procedural error in 21 (37.5%), lack of informed consent of resident being involved in two (3.6%), prolonged operative time in one (1.8%), and lack of informed consent of procedure/complications in one (1.8%). Conclusion Malpractice cases involving pediatric trainees highlight the importance of adequate supervision by attending physicians. These concerns are not exclusive to interns and residents and necessitate action by all members of the healthcare team. Given the interplay of supervision and diagnostic accuracy, trainee education and faculty development should emphasize malpractice education and strategies to mitigate lawsuits to both improve patient outcomes and reduce the likelihood of future malpractice claims.

A review of medical malpractice cases involving trainees in the emergency department.

Background: This study characterizes medical malpractice lawsuits involving trainees providing care in the emergency department (ED), affording insight into the types of patients involved, clinical scenarios, and legal outcomes of these cases. Methods: Cases were identified using the legal database, Westlaw. Per chart review methods, relevant information was abstracted by 2 trained reviewers onto a standardized data abstraction form, with a senior author arbitrating disagreements. Results: We identified 60 cases reported between 1982 and 2017 in which a trainee was named in a lawsuit related to patient care provided in the ED. The most common alleged errors included diagnostic (n = 37, 61%), treatment (n = 13, 21%), and procedural errors (n = 19, 16%). In 21 cases (35%), it was alleged that no attending physician was directly involved in the care at any time. The attending was noted to have seen the patient in person at any point in only 11 total cases (18%). Of the 50 cases with known outcomes, 15 (30%) decided in favor of the patient, 21 (42%) were resolved in the physician's favor, and 14 (28%) were settled. Conclusion: This study underscores that trainees are vulnerable to malpractice cases and that lack of direct supervision is a prominent theme in these cases. This information suggests areas for further work and may help training programs, trainees, and supervising physicians design their practice patterns in ways that mitigate these risks in the future.

Litigation associated with 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use: A Canadian legal database review.

INTRODUCTION: 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARI) are commonly prescribed medications. There is ongoing controversy about the adverse events of these medications. The aim of this study is to characterize lawsuits in Canada involving medical complications of 5ARIs use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Legal cases were queried from CanLII. Cases were included if they involved a party taking a 5ARI who alleged an adverse event. Relevant full cases were retained, and pertinent characteristics were extracted with the help of a legal expert. RESULTS: Our deduplicated search yielded 67 unique legal documents from December 2013 to February 2019. Twelve of these documents met the inclusion criteria (representing 3 cases, considering each case had several hearings). The medical complaints filed by the plaintiffs were all related to medication side effects (n = 3, 100%). The plaintiffs were commonly patients themselves. Defendants were exclusively pharmaceutical companies. Persistent erectile dysfunction after stopping the medication was cited as a side effect in all complaints. The prescriptions were made for male pattern hair loss (n = 3, 100%) in all cases. All cases represent class actions brought by the plaintiffs, and they have been certified by their respective court. However, the cases are still ongoing. CONCLUSION: While 5ARI use has been linked to undesired sexual side effects, there have been few litigations on this issue in Canada. Persisting sexual dysfunction after stopping the medication is the only complaint presented in legal action. To date, no judgment against a physician or pharmaceutical company was identified. Cases are still ongoing.

Lessons in liability: Examining medical malpractice suits against general surgeons in Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Although medical malpractice lawsuits pose a significant burden, there is a paucity of research on physician-specific characteristics influencing lawsuits against surgeons. Our objective was to identify factors associated with general surgeons being named in malpractice cases. METHODS: This was a cross sectional study of Maryland general surgeons, using malpractice data from a publicly accessible judiciary database. Case number per decade and lifetime lawsuit status were modeled with linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Male surgeons had a higher average lawsuit volume (p = 0.002) and were more likely to be named in a malpractice case (p < 0.001). In regression analysis, a second graduate degree was a predictor of average cases per 10 years (p = 0.008) and male gender predicted lifetime lawsuit status (OR = 1.73, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender was associated with increased odds of being named in a malpractice lawsuit. Identifying this difference is a preliminary step in developing interventions to reduce lawsuits amongst surgeons.

Commonly Missed Findings on Chest Radiographs: Causes and Consequences.

Chest radiography (CXR) continues to be the most frequently performed imaging examination worldwide, yet it remains prone to frequent errors in interpretation. These pose potential adverse consequences to patients and are a leading motivation for medical malpractice lawsuits. Commonly missed CXR findings and the principal causes of these errors are reviewed and illustrated. Perceptual errors are the predominant source of these missed findings. The medicolegal implications of such errors are explained. Awareness of commonly missed CXR findings, their causes, and their consequences are important in developing approaches to reduce and mitigate these errors.

Who judges medical practice?

Lawsuits due to patient perception of inappropriate medical actions are a growing reality in medical practice, which entails widespread concern in the medical community. Lawsuits often entail additional circumstances beyond the primary concern of preventing or sanctioning acts of medical negligence. CETREMI proposes various recommendations aimed at legal and medical professionals to improve this circumstance and avoid harming the doctor-patient relationship.

Las demandas judiciales por la percepción del paciente de una actuación médica inadecuada son una realidad creciente en la práctica médica, la cual entraña una preocupación extendida en el gremio médico. Las demandas judiciales frecuentemente conllevan circunstancias adicionales a la primaria preocupación de prevenir o sancionar actos de negligencia médica. CETREMI emite algunas recomendaciones a los profesionales jurídicos y médicos para mejorar esta situación y evitar daños en la relación médico-paciente.

Malpractice lawsuits in orthopedic trauma surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature.

Introduction: The objectives for this study were to identify whether diagnostic or procedural errors more commonly resulted in lawsuit, as well as to elucidate how specific variables affected mean indemnity. Methods: Systematic review of English-language articles in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases (through 2020) using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate measures of proportions and differences in mean indemnity. Results: The estimated probability of lawsuits related to orthopedic trauma in overall studies was 23.3%. There were no significant rate differences between main causes of claims (diagnostic vs procedural errors) and areas of injury (upper vs lower). There was no significant difference of mean indemnity between the probabilities of trauma-related claims, diagnostic error, and procedural error. Conclusion: Non-trauma cases were more likely to result in lawsuit than trauma cases. Procedural errors accounted for most malpractice claims. The average indemnity increased according to the higher diagnostic errors, while the indemnity was lower with a relatively higher proportion of procedural errors. The most common cause of litigation varied between studies; however, among the most cited reasons were missed diagnosis/error in diagnosis, improper/substandard surgical performance, and, though not specifically studied in this analysis, errors of informed consent. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analyses Level VI.

Medical Malpractice Trends in Dacryocystorhinostomy and Orbital Decompression.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the medicolegal trends related to 2 common orbital surgeries: orbital decompression and dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). These procedures are performed by ophthalmologists, otolaryngologists, and multidisciplinary teams of both specialists. METHODS: The Westlaw database was reviewed from 1980 to 2020 for medical malpractice cases involving orbital decompression and DCR surgeries. Data were compiled on plaintiff and defendant demographics, procedure performed, legal allegation, nature of injury, and verdict or settlement awards. The Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company was also queried for all malpractice cases pertaining to orbital decompression and DCR from 1995 to 2021. RESULTS: The Westlaw database included 60 cases (34 orbital decompression, 26 DCR); of these, 8 orbital decompression and 6 DCR cases met inclusion criteria. Of the 7 orbital decompression cases that were tried, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff occurred in 4 cases (57%). Of the 5 DCR cases that were tried, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff occurred in 2 cases (40%). A search of all claims at OMIC yielded 31 cases (15 orbital decompression, 16 DCR). 22 of 31 cases were either dismissed or resulted in no payment. The remainder was settled out of court, with only one case being tried and the verdict supporting the defendant. CONCLUSION: Despite several thousand orbital decompressions and DCR surgeries being performed annually in the US, very few lawsuits involving these complex surgeries have gone to trial. However, of the cases that did go to trial, a relatively high proportion of verdicts for plaintiffs was observed.

¿Quién juzga la actuación médica? / Who judges medical practice?

Resumen Las demandas judiciales por la percepción del paciente de una actuación médica inadecuada son una realidad creciente en la práctica médica, la cual entraña una preocupación extendida en el gremio médico. Las demandas judiciales frecuentemente conllevan circunstancias adicionales a la primaria preocupación de prevenir o sancionar actos de negligencia médica. CETREMI emite algunas recomendaciones a los profesionales jurídicos y médicos para mejorar esta situación y evitar daños en la relación médico-paciente.

Abstract Lawsuits due to patient perception of inappropriate medical actions are a growing reality in medical practice, which entails widespread concern in the medical community. Lawsuits often entail additional circumstances beyond the primary concern of preventing or sanctioning acts of medical negligence. CETREMI proposes various recommendations aimed at legal and medical professionals to improve this circumstance and avoid harming the doctor-patient relationship.

Public sector implementation strategies to approach the judicialization of health care: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The judicialization of health care can be understood as a societal response to pressing healthcare needs, which probably are not being adequately addressed by the current healthcare system. This phenomenon increases the strain on service resources, both in the health sector and in the judiciary system as well, demanding an institutional reorganization to manage judicial actions. It is believed that each institution has developed strategies for coping with the problem in isolation and with little public disclosure. The purpose of this review will be to identify institutional strategies implemented and to investigate their effects in approaching the judicialization of health care. METHODS: Electronic searches will be conducted up to December 2021 on 11 databases, supplemented with gray literature and references lists of secondary studies. The descriptor "judicialization of health" will be the basis for conducting the main research. Studies describing any strategy implemented by public institutions to approach the judicialization of health care will be included. Results related to the quality of services provided by the implemented strategy reported in the studies and those that report accessibility, usability, and potential adverse effects or harms caused by the implemented strategy will be investigated. In addition, it will be explored if there have been changes related to the value or characteristics of health litigation. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, abstract data, and full-text papers. The risk of bias in each study will be appraised using a tool suggested by Cochrane Effective Practice and Care Organization Group (EPOC). Subsequently, the reviewers will also extract the data of interest and classify the findings of these studies according to their performance at the institutional level. The results obtained will be described as a narrative synthesis. DISCUSSION: This review may provide evidence on the effects of the strategies implemented to approach the judicialization of health care. It will potentially benefit health care and legal professionals, decision-makers, and researchers by identifying the types and characteristics of strategies that have the potential to improve service delivery in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020160608.

Medical Malpractice Trends in Foot and Ankle Surgery.

Medical malpractice lawsuits can place significant economic and psychologic burden on a provider. Orthopedic surgery is one of the most common subspecialties involved in malpractice claims. There is currently no study examining malpractice lawsuits within foot and ankle surgery. Accordingly, the purpose of this work is to examine trends in malpractice claims in foot and ankle surgery. The Westlaw legal database was queried for lawsuits pertaining to foot and ankle surgery from 2008 to 2018. Only cases involving medical malpractice were included for analysis. All available details pertaining to the cases were collected. This included plaintiff demographic and geographic data. Details regarding the cases were also collected such as anatomical location, pathology, complications, and case outcomes. Forty-nine malpractice lawsuits pertaining to foot and ankle were identified. Most plaintiffs in these cases were adult females, and the majority of cases occurred in the northeast (53.1%). The most common anatomical region involved in claims involved the forefoot (29%). The majority of these claims involved surgery (65%). Infection was the most common complication seen in claims (22%). The jury ruled in favor of the defendant surgeon in most cases (73%). This is the first study to examine trends in medical malpractice within foot and ankle surgery. Infection was the most frequent complication seen in claims and forefoot surgery was the most common anatomic location. A large portion of claims resulted after nonoperative treatment. A better understanding of the trends within malpractice claims is crucial to developing strategies for prevention.

[Legal Risk Management in Nursing Practice: The Importance of Duty of Care].

The steady and continued rise in medical-related disputes and lawsuits is one indicator of the myriad risks and challenges faced in today's nursing practice. When nurses become defendants, the lengthy litigation process and pressures that ensue greatly impact their professional and personal lives. Nursing practice dispute categories marked by particularly high severity and frequency over the past ten years include: (1) Failure to operate according to standard procedures, (2) Insufficient nursing sensitivity and negligent care, (3) Failure to communicate and deal with issues promptly and appropriately, (4) Beyond the scope of nursing practice, and (5) Falsification or alteration of nursing records. In this paper, the important duties of care in four major nursing practices are first summarized based on the relevant legal risks. Next, based on this, risk management procedures are prioritized, evidence-oriented nursing routine standards are set, and systematic analysis and management are conducted. In addition, to strengthen the legal awareness of nurses, nursing staffs, supervisors, and institutions must all understand clearly the three types of civil and criminal legal liabilities and their respective administrative responsibilities. Nurses should proactively work to handle the related legal risks and avoid the unpleasant consequences of civil liability in the realms of compensation, criminal punishment for negligent injury and homicide, and administrative disciplinary action.

Oral isotretinoin: 29 years of medical malpractice cases in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Reviews of malpractice claims in the United States show trends of increasing payments with statistically higher payouts for more debilitating and permanent injuries. OBJECTIVES: To examine lawsuits involving notable associated adverse reactions of isotretinoin. METHODS: Court records of US legal trials from 1985 to 2014 were obtained from a major computerized database: LexisNexis. Data were compiled on the demographics of the defendant and plaintiff, litigation over adverse drug reaction, legal allegations, verdicts, and ruling decisions. RESULTS: Seventy unique cases met inclusion criteria and were selected for review. Forty-four cases cited physicians, and 26 cited a pharmaceutical company. When data from physician and pharmaceutical company litigations were combined, individuals 17 years or younger were more likely to be granted litigation outcomes in their favor compared with adults (P = .0016). Cases alleging failure to monitor were associated with an outcome in favor of the plaintiff (P = .0379). LIMITATIONS: Cases settled or terminated before going to court could not be reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity with malpractice trends through precedent-setting cases will increase physician awareness of common pitfalls, potentially mitigating litigation risk and improving patient care.