Dental mapractice litigance in the city of São Paulo (SP), Brazil

The relationship between patients and dentists today is more worn and less based on trust, which can lead to high rates of lawsuits related to civil liability and dental malpractice. Aim: verify if there has been an increase in the number of lawsuits related to questioned dental treatments, and against dentists registered in the city of São Paulo (SP), Brazil, from 2012 to 2017. Methods: We outlined an overview based on the list from the São Paulo Council of Dentistry containing 30,238 registered dentists in the city of São Paulo, and searched for lawsuits on the public base of the São Paulo State Court's. Results: The search, after the inclusion and exclusion criteria, found 247 lawsuits, with dental implants as the most involved specialty. The total indemnities requested ranged from R$ 227.42 to R$ 937,000.00, but no indemnity granted exceeded the amount of R$ 100,000.00. Conclusion: According to the analysis of cases, there is a progressive increase in the number of civil liability lawsuits against dentists involving dental malpractice litigance

An Analysis of Otolaryngology Medical Malpractice Payments From the National Practitioner Data Bank.

OBJECTIVE: To describe malpractice payments made on behalf of otolaryngologists, analyze trends over time, and test the association of payment amount with severity of alleged malpractice and patient age. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: National Practitioner Data Bank. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study comprised all payments made on behalf of otolaryngologists from 1991 to 2018 that were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. Descriptive statistics were calculated within and across years. Trends in payments were analyzed with the Mann-Kendall test. Generalized linear regression was utilized to test for association of payment amount with severity of the alleged injury and patient age. RESULTS: From 1991 to 2018, there was a significant decrease in the number of payments (272 to 81) and number of otolaryngologists on whose behalf payments were made (250 to 77). Mean and median payments increased significantly from $248,848 to $420,386 and from $96,813 to $275,000, respectively. By severity of alleged injury, mean payments ranged from $39,755 (95% CI, $20,957-$75,412) for insignificant injury to $754,349 (95% CI, $624,847-$910,692) for patients who were left quadriplegic, sustained brain damage, or required lifelong care. By patient age, mean payments for patients ≥60 years old were $191,465 (95% CI, $159,880-$229,292) versus $247,878 (95% CI, $209,416-$293,402) for patients aged 20 to 39 years and $232,225 (95% CI, $197,691-$272,793) for patients aged 40 to 59 years. CONCLUSION: The annual number and total value of malpractice payments decreased, while the annual mean and median payments increased. Payment amount was associated with severity of alleged malpractice and patient age.

Impact of malpractice liability among spine surgeons: A national survey of French private neurosurgeons.

PURPOSE: In the general context of medical judicialization, spine surgeons are impacted by the part that medical responsibility and the risk of malpractice play in their actions and decisions. Our aim was to evaluate possible shifts in practices among private neurosurgeons who are highly exposed to this judicial risk and detect alterations in their pleasure in exercising their profession. We present the first national survey on French physicians' perception of surgical judicialization and consequences on their practice. METHODS: An online survey was submitted to the 121 members of the French Society of Private Neurosurgery, who represent 29.1% of the total number of spine surgeons and perform 36.0% of the national total spine surgery activity. The French law (no-fault out-of-court scheme) significantly impacts these surgeons in the event of litigation. RESULTS: A total of 78 surveys were completed (64.5% response rate): 89.7% of respondents experienced alteration of doctor-patient relationship related to judicialization and 60.2% had already refused to perform risky surgeries. Fear of being sued added negative pressure during surgery for 55.1% of respondents and 37.2% of them had already considered stopping their practice because of this litigation context. CONCLUSION: The increasing impact of medical liability is prompting practitioners to change their practice and perceptions. The doctor-patient relationship appears to be altered, negative pressure is placed on physicians and defensively, some neurosurgeons may refuse high-risk patients and procedures. This situation causes professional disenchantment and can ultimately prove disadvantageous for both doctors and patients.

Spine neurosurgeons facing the judicialization of their profession: disenchantment and alteration of daily practice-a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The judicialization of medicine can lead to professional disenchantment and defensive attitudes among surgeons. Some quantitative studies have investigated this topic in spine surgery, but none has provided direct thematic feedback from physicians. This qualitative study aimed to identify the impact of this phenomenon in the practice of spine neurosurgeons. METHODS: We proposed a qualitative study using grounded theory approach. Twenty-three purposively selected private neurosurgeons participated. Inclusion took place until data saturation was reached. Data were collected through individual interviews and analyzed thematically and independently by three researchers (an anthropologist, a psychiatrist, and a neurosurgeon). RESULTS: Data analysis identified five superordinate themes that were based on items that recurred in interviews: (1) private practice of spinal surgery (high-risk surgery based on frequent functional symptoms, in an unfavorable medicolegal context); (2) societal transformation of the doctor-patient relationship (new societal demands, impact of the internet and social network); (3) judicialization of spine surgery (surgeons' feelings about the frequency and motivation of the complaints they receive, and their own management of them); (4) coping strategies (identification and solutions for "at risk" situations and patients); and (5) professional disenchantment (impact of these events on surgeons' daily practice and career planning). Selected quotes of interviews were reported to support these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights several elements that can alter the quality of care in a context of societal change and the judicialization of medicine. The alteration of the doctor-patient relationship and the permanent pressure of a possible complaint encourage surgeons to adopt defensive attitudes in order to minimize the risks of litigation and increased insurance premiums. These phenomena can affect the quality of care and the privacy of physicians to the extent that they may consider changing or interrupting their careers earlier.