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.

Body of Evidence: Do Autopsy Findings Impact Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians may hesitate to advocate for autopsies out of concern for increased malpractice risk if the pathological findings at time of death differ from the clinical findings. We aimed to understand the impact of autopsy findings on malpractice claim outcomes. METHODS: Closed malpractice claims with loss dates between 1995 and 2015 involving death related to inpatient care at 3 Harvard Medical School hospitals were extracted from a captive malpractice insurer's database. These claims were linked to patients' electronic health records and their autopsy reports. Using the Goldman classification system, 2 physician reviewers blinded to claim outcome determined whether there was major, minor, or no discordance between the final clinical diagnoses and pathologic diagnoses. Claims were compared depending on whether an autopsy was performed and whether there was major versus minor/no clinical-pathologic discordance. Primary outcomes included percentage of claims paid through settlement or plaintiff verdict and the amount of indemnity paid, inflation adjusted. RESULTS: Of 293 malpractice claims related to an inpatient death that could be linked to patients' electronic health records, 89 claims (30%) had an autopsy performed by either the hospital or medical examiner. The most common claim allegation was an issue with clinician diagnosis, which was statistically less common in the autopsy group (18% versus 38%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in percentage of claims paid whether an autopsy was performed or not (42% versus 41%, P = 0.90) and no difference in median indemnity of paid claims after adjusting for number of defendants ($1,180,537 versus $906,518, P = 0.15). Thirty-one percent of claims with hospital autopsies performed demonstrated major discordance between autopsy and clinical findings. Claims with major clinical-pathologic discordance also did not have a statistically significant difference in percentage paid (44% versus 41%, P > 0.99) or amount paid ($895,954 versus $1,494,120, P = 0.10) compared with claims with minor or no discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple factors determine malpractice claim outcome, in this cohort, claims in which an autopsy was performed did not result in more paid outcomes, even when there was major discordance between clinical and pathologic diagnoses.

Serious misdiagnosis-related harms in malpractice claims: The "Big Three" - vascular events, infections, and cancers.

Background Diagnostic errors cause substantial preventable harm, but national estimates vary widely from 40,000 to 4 million annually. This cross-sectional analysis of a large medical malpractice claims database was the first phase of a three-phase project to estimate the US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms. Methods We sought to identify diseases accounting for the majority of serious misdiagnosis-related harms (morbidity/mortality). Diagnostic error cases were identified from Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO)'s Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) database (2006-2015), representing 28.7% of all US malpractice claims. Diseases were grouped according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) that aggregates the International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes into clinically sensible groupings. We analyzed vascular events, infections, and cancers (the "Big Three"), including frequency, severity, and settings. High-severity (serious) harms were defined by scores of 6-9 (serious, permanent disability, or death) on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Severity of Injury Scale. Results From 55,377 closed claims, we analyzed 11,592 diagnostic error cases [median age 49, interquartile range (IQR) 36-60; 51.7% female]. These included 7379 with high-severity harms (53.0% death). The Big Three diseases accounted for 74.1% of high-severity cases (vascular events 22.8%, infections 13.5%, and cancers 37.8%). In aggregate, the top five from each category (n = 15 diseases) accounted for 47.1% of high-severity cases. The most frequent disease in each category, respectively, was stroke, sepsis, and lung cancer. Causes were disproportionately clinical judgment factors (85.7%) across categories (range 82.0-88.8%). Conclusions The Big Three diseases account for about three-fourths of serious misdiagnosis-related harms. Initial efforts to improve diagnosis should focus on vascular events, infections, and cancers.

Medical Malpractice Analysis in Radiation Oncology: A Decade of Results From a National Comparative Benchmarking System.

PURPOSE: Medical errors in radiation oncology (RO) practice have received significant national attention over the last decade. Medical errors can lead to malpractice cases. Better characterizing these events can educate providers with the goal of improving patient care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Controlled Risk Insurance Company Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) represents approximately 30% of all closed US malpractice cases and includes the experience of more than 30 academic hospitals. Registered nurses trained as clinical taxonomy specialists code each case, and individual case-level details are available. Practicing radiation oncologists extracted all closed RO cases from years 2005 to 2014 and subgrouped them by patient allegation category, clinical injury severity, care setting and academic affiliation, disease site and natural history, treatment modality, and contributing factor. Within categories, χ2 tests were used to test for the variables' association with an indemnity payment. RESULTS: RO was the primary service in 102 closed cases (0.2% of all cases in the CBS), accounting for $13,323,578 in indemnity payments (0.1% of all payments in the CBS). The median indemnity payment was $100,000. Head-and-neck and central nervous system tumors accounted for 23.9% and 10.9% of all RO cases, respectively, and 41.3% and 31.4% of all indemnity payments, respectively. Benign diseases and brachytherapy were involved in 12.0% and 15.2% of cases, respectively. Cases involving benign disease (P = .009), treatment of the wrong site (P = .001), or treatment using the wrong dose (P < .001) were all associated with indemnity payments. The top 5 most expensive cases accounted for nearly 80% of all indemnity payments, and all involved head-and-neck, central nervous system, benign, or brachytherapy cases. CONCLUSIONS: We found that although closed malpractice cases involving RO are rare events, certain populations may be overrepresented in closed claims. These data can help inform providers and systems with the goal of ultimately improving patient safety.

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.

Improved Safety and Cost Savings from Reductions in Cast-Saw Burns After Simulation-Based Education for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of simulation training aimed at reducing cast-saw injuries. METHODS: Third-year orthopaedic residents underwent simulation-based instruction on distal radial fracture reduction, casting, and cast removal using an oscillating saw. The analysis compared incidences of cast-saw injuries and associated costs before and after the implementation of the simulation curriculum. Actual and potential costs associated with cast-saw injuries included wound care, extra clinical visits, and potential total payment (indemnity and expense payments). Curriculum costs were calculated through time-derived, activity-based accounting methods. The researchers compared the costs of cast-saw injuries and the simulation curriculum to determine overall savings and return on investment. RESULTS: In the 2.5 years prior to simulation, cast-saw injuries occurred in approximately 4.3 per 100 casts cut by orthopaedic residents. For the 2.5-year period post-simulation, the injury rate decreased significantly to approximately 0.7 per 100 casts cut (p = 0.002). The total cost to implement the casting simulation was $2,465.31 per 6-month resident rotation. On the basis of historical data related to cast-saw burns (n = 6), total payments ranged from $2,995 to $25,000 per claim. The anticipated savings from averted cast-saw injuries and associated medicolegal payments in the 2.5 years post-simulation was $27,131, representing an 11-to-1 return on investment. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based training for orthopaedic surgical residents was effective in reducing cast-saw injuries and had a high theoretical return on investment. These results support further investment in simulation-based training as cost-effective means of improving patient safety and clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.