Characterizing malpractice cases involving emergency department advanced practice providers, physicians in training, and attending physicians.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate available characteristics and financial costs of malpractice cases among advanced practice providers (APPs; nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]), trainees (medical students, residents, fellows), and attending physicians. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of claims occurring in the emergency department (ED) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, contained in the Candello database. Cases were classified according to the provider type(s) involved: NP, PA, trainee, or cases that did not identify an extender as being substantially involved in the adverse event that resulted in the case ("no extender"). RESULTS: There were 5854 cases identified with a total gross indemnity paid of $1,007,879,346. Of these cases, 193 (3.3%) involved an NP, 513 (8.8%) involved a PA, 535 (9.1%) involved a trainee, and 4568 (78.0%) were no extender. Cases where a trainee was involved account for the highest average gross indemnity paid whereas no-extender cases are the lowest. NP and PA cases differed by contributing factors compared to no-extender cases: clinical judgment (NP 89.1% vs. no extender 76.8%, p < 0.0001; PA 84.6% vs. no extender, p < 0.0001), documentation (NP 23.3% vs. no extender 17.8%, p = 0.0489; PA 25.9% vs. no extender, p < 0.0001), and supervision (NP 22.3% vs. no extender 1.8%, p < 0.0001; PA 25.7% vs. no extender p < 0.0001). Cases involving NPs and PAs had a lower percentage of high-severity cases such as loss of limb or death (NP 45.6% vs. no extender 50.2%, p = 0.0004; PA 48.3% vs. no extender, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: APPs and trainees comprise approximately 21% of malpractice cases and 33% of total gross indemnity paid in this large national ED data set. Understanding differences in characteristics of malpractice claims that occur in emergency care settings can be used to help to mitigate provider risk.

Assessing the impact of hospital mergers and acquisitions on safety culture with proactive risk assessments.

Hospitals seeking to understand patient safety strengths and vulnerabilities in the context of mergers/acquisitions benefit more from a third-party perspective than from a limited internal process. A well-structured and highly-inclusive risk assessment-involving a broad cross-section of interviews-can be key to a successful transition of optimal health care safety during organizational changes.

Malpractice Cases in Breast Surgery: An Assessment of Litigation Involving Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: Improving patient safety and quality are priorities in health care. The study of malpractice cases provides an opportunity to identify areas for quality improvement. While the issues surrounding malpractice cases in breast cancer are often multifactorial, there are few studies providing insight into malpractice cases specifically related to common breast cancer surgical procedures. We sought to characterize the factors in liability cases involving breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Closed cases from 2008 to 2019 involving a breast cancer diagnosis, a primary responsible service of general surgery, surgical oncology, or plastic surgery, and a breast cancer procedure were reviewed using data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Strategies Comparative Benchmarking System database, a national repository of professional liability data. RESULTS: A total of 174 malpractice cases were reviewed, of which 41 cases were closed with payment. Plastic surgeons were most commonly named (64%, 111/174), followed by general surgeons (30%, 53/174), and surgical oncologists (6%, 10/174). The most common allegation was error in surgical treatment (87%, 152/174), and infection, cosmetic injury, emotional trauma, foreign body, and nosocomial infections represented the top five injury descriptions. On average, indemnity payments were larger for high clinical severity cases. Technical skills, followed by clinical judgment, were the most commonly named contributing factors. The average payment per case was $130,422. CONCLUSION: Malpractice cases predominantly involve technical complications related to plastic surgery procedures. Better understanding of the malpractice environment involving surgical procedures performed for breast cancer may provide practical insight to guide initiatives aimed at improving patient outcomes.

Patient Engagement Activities and Patient Experience: Are Patients With a History of Depression the Canary in the Coal Mine?

Little is known about the effectiveness of primary care practices' efforts to engage patients in their health and health care. We examine the association between patient engagement efforts and patients' experiences of care. We found no association between an unweighted count of patient engagement activities and patient experience. Compared with the bottom quartile of practices, however, the top quartile had better performance on patient experience domains of communication, front-office staff, and organizational access (out of nine domains). Furthermore, patients reporting a diagnosis of depression have higher ratings across five domains of patient experience when in practices with higher levels of patient engagement activities measured using an unweighted scale. Future research is needed to understand how the benefits of patient engagement activities can accrue to more patient subgroups. These promising results suggest that payers and policy makers should continue to support implementation and benchmarking of patient engagement efforts across practices.

Comparison of Emergency Medicine Malpractice Cases Involving Residents to Nonresident Cases.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on how emergency medicine (EM) malpractice cases with resident involvement differs from cases that do not name a resident. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare malpractice case characteristics in cases where a resident is involved (resident case) to cases that do not involve a resident (nonresident case) and to determine factors that contribute to malpractice cases utilizing EM as a model for malpractice claims across other medical specialties. METHODS: We used data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Strategies' division Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) to analyze open and closed EM cases asserted from 2009 to 2013. The CBS database is a national repository that contains professional liability data on > 400 hospitals and > 165,000 physicians, representing over 30% of all malpractice cases in the United States (>350,000 claims). We compared cases naming residents (either alone or in combination with an attending) to those that did not involve a resident (nonresident cohort). We reported the case statistics, allegation categories, severity scores, procedural data, final diagnoses, and contributing factors. Fisher's exact test or t-test was used for comparisons (alpha set at 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 845 EM cases were identified of which 732 (87%) did not name a resident (nonresident cases), while 113 (13%) included a resident (resident cases). There were higher total incurred losses for nonresident cases. The most frequent allegation categories in both cohorts were "failure or delay in diagnosis/misdiagnosis" and "medical treatment" (nonsurgical procedures or treatment regimens, i.e., central line placement). Allegation categories of safety and security, patient monitoring, hospital policy and procedure, and breach of confidentiality were found in the nonresident cases. Resident cases incurred lower payments on average ($51,163 vs. $156,212 per case). Sixty-six percent (75) of resident versus 57% (415) of nonresident cases were high-severity claims (permanent, grave disability or death; p = 0.05). Procedures involved were identified in 32% (36) of resident and 26% (188) of nonresident cases (p = 0.17). The final diagnoses in resident cases were more often cardiac related (19% [21] vs. 10% [71], p < 0.005) whereas nonresident cases had more orthopedic-related final diagnoses (10% [72] vs. 3% [3], p < 0.01). The most common contributing factors in resident and nonresident cases were clinical judgment (71% vs. 76% [p = 0.24]), communication (27% vs. 30% [p = 0.46]), and documentation (20% vs. 21% [p = 0.95]). Technical skills contributed to 20% (22) of resident cases versus 13% (96) of nonresident cases (p = 0.07) but those procedures involving vascular access (2.7% [3] vs 0.1% [1]) and spinal procedures (3.5% [4] vs. 1.1% [8]) were more prevalent in resident cases (p < 0.05 for each). CONCLUSIONS: There are higher total incurred losses in nonresident cases. There are higher severity scores in resident cases. The overall case profiles, including allegation categories, final diagnoses, and contributing factors between resident and nonresident cases are similar. Cases involving residents are more likely to involve certain technical skills, specifically vascular access and spinal procedures, which may have important implications regarding supervision. Clinical judgment, communication, and documentation are the most prevalent contributing factors in all cases and should be targets for risk reduction strategies.