Changes in physician supply and scope of practice during a malpractice crisis: evidence from Pennsylvania

Medical malpractice in hospitals-how healthcare staff feel

Introduction

Literature is limited on quantified acute stress reaction, the impact of event scale on medical staff when facing medical malpractice (MMP), and how to individually care for staff.

Methods

We analyzed data in the Taichung Veterans General Hospital from October 2015 to December 2017, using the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (SASRQ), the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and the medical malpractice stress syndrome (MMSS).

Results and Discussion

Of all 98 participants, most (78.8%) were women. Most MMPs (74.5%) did not involve injury to patients, and most staff (85.7%) indicated receiving help from the hospital. The internal-consistency evaluations of the three questionnaires showed good validity and reliability. The highest score of IES-R was the construct of intrusion (30.1); the most severe construct of SASRQ was "Marked symptoms of anxiety or increased arousal," and the most were having mental and mild physical symptoms for MMES. A higher total IES-R was associated with younger age (<40 y/o), and more severe injury on patients (mortality). Those who indicated receiving very much help from the hospital were those having significantly lower SASRQ sores. Our study highlighted that hospital authorities should regularly follow up on staff's response to MMP. With timely interventions, vicious cycles of bad feelings can be avoided, especially in young, non-doctor, and non-administrative staff.

Race-based medicine in the point-of-care clinical resource UpToDate: A systematic content analysis

BACKGROUND

Race-based practices in medical education and clinical care may exacerbate health inequities. Misguided use of race in popular point-of-care clinical decision-making tools like UpToDate® may promote harmful practices of race-based medicine. This article investigates the nature of mentions of Black/African American race in UpToDate®.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic content analysis of UpToDate® articles mentioning Black or African American race to assess for biological interpretations of racial categories. Following a simple text search for the terms "Black" and "African American" in UpToDate® on January 24 and March 19, 2020, respectively, removal of duplicates yielded an analytical sample of 208 documents. We adopted a deductive coding approach and systematically applied 16 a priori codes to all documents, refining the codebook to achieve a final inter-rater reliability of 0.91. We then developed these codes into two themes: (1) biologization of race and (2) racialized research and practice.

FINDINGS

Biologization of race occurred nearly universally across all documents (93.3%), with discussions of inherent physiological differences between racial groups and presentation of epidemiologic disparities without context emerging most frequently. Sixty-eight documents (32.7%) included codes related to racialized biomedical research and clinical practice, including references to racialized patterns of behavior and cultural practices, insufficient data on Black populations, research limiting study to a specific racial group, and race-based clinical practices guidelines.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that UpToDate® articles often inappropriately link Black race to genetics or clinical phenotype-without considering socio-structural variables or the health effects of structural racism-thus perpetuating a false narrative that race is inherently biological. UpToDate® articles may also promote unequal treatment by recommending race-based clinical practices. Such racial essentialism risks exacerbating racialized health inequities.

FUNDING

The study is supported by the Health Policy Research Scholars Program, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Medical Scientist Training Program, National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the JPB Foundation, the Minnesota Population, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), and the Center for Antiracism Research for Health Equity at the University of Minnesota.

Malpractice Environment vs Direct Litigation: What Drives Nursing Home Exit?

An ongoing concern about medical malpractice litigation is that it may induce provider exit, potentially affecting consumer welfare. The nursing home sector is subject to substantial litigation activity but remains generally understudied in terms of the effects of litigation, due perhaps to a paucity of readily available data. In this article, we estimate the association between litigation and nursing home exit (closure or change in ownership), separating the impact of malpractice environment from direct litigation. We use 2 main data sources for this study: Westlaw's Adverse Filings database (1997-2005) and Online Survey, Certification and Reporting data sets (1997-2005). We use probit models with state and year fixed effects to examine the relationship between litigation and the probability of nursing home closure or change in ownership with and without adjustment for malpractice environment. We examine the relationship on average and also stratify by profit status, chain membership, and market competition. We find that direct litigation against a nursing home has a nonsignificant effect on the probability of closure or change in ownership within the subsequent 2 years. In contrast, the broader malpractice environment has a significant effect on change in ownership, even for nursing homes that have not been sued, but not on closure. Effects are stronger among for-profit and chain facilities and those in more competitive markets. A high-risk malpractice environment is associated with change of ownership of nursing homes regardless of whether they have been directly sued, indicating that it is too blunt an instrument for weeding out low-quality nursing homes.

Where am I? Transnasal esophagoscopy outside the normal esophagus

Medical malpractice is costly and disruptive, and it is important to prevent. We conducted a study with the objective to look at medical malpractice in robotic surgery overall, to evaluate reasons for litigation, and to comment on possible strategies to avoid litigation with transoral robotic surgery. We used the Westlaw computerized database to identify all state and federal verdict summaries in medical malpractice cases. We found 17 cases alleging malpractice that involved the use of robotic surgery. In all, the plaintiffs in 6 cases (35%) contended that an open rather than a robotic approach should have been used, 5 (29%) alleged negligent credentialing, 4 (24%) alleged training deficiencies, 2 (12%) alleged manufacturing problems, and 1 (6%) charged that robotic surgery should have been performed instead of open surgery (1 case involved two of these allegations). In 11 cases (65%), plaintiffs charged that robotic surgery contributed to an undesirable outcome, and in 6 cases (35%) they raised concerns about informed consent. In all, only 5 of the 17 lawsuits (29%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts or settlements; damages ranged from $95,000 to $7.5 million. We believe the courts should not play a major role in establishing safety guidelines for the introduction of new technology such as robotic surgery. Instead, training and credentialing guidelines should be established by appropriate national associations and societies to assist hospitals in doing so.

A 12-year analysis of closed medical malpractice claims of the Taiwan civil court: A retrospective study

Malpractices lawsuits cause increased physician stress and decreased career satisfaction, which might result in defensive medicine for avoiding litigation. It is, consequently, important to learn experiences from previous malpractice claims. The aim of this study was to examine the epidemiologic factors related to medical malpractice claims, identify specialties at high risk of such claims, and determine clinical which errors tend to lead to medical malpractice lawsuits, by analyzing closed malpractice claims in the civil courts of Taiwan.The current analysis reviewed the verdicts of the Taiwan judicial system from a retrospective study using the population-based databank, focusing on 946 closed medical claims between 2002 and 2013.Among these medical malpractice claims, only 14.1% of the verdicts were against clinicians, with a mean indemnity payment of $83,350. The most common single specialty involved was obstetrics (10.7%), while the surgery group accounted for approximately 40% of the cases. In total, 46.3% of the patients named in the claims had either died or been gravely injured. Compared to the $75,632 indemnity for deceased patients, the mean indemnity payment for plaintiffs with grave outcomes was approximately 4.5 times higher. The diagnosis groups at high risk of malpractice litigation were infectious diseases (7.3%), malignancies (7.2%), and limb fractures (4.9%). A relatively low success rate was found in claims concerning undiagnosed congenital anomalies (4.5%) and infectious diseases (5.8%) group. A surgery dispute was the most frequent argument in civil malpractice claims (38.8%), followed by diagnosis error (19.3%).Clinicians represent 85.9% of the defendants who won their cases, but they spent an average of 4.7 years to reach final adjudication. Increased public education to prevent unrealistic expectations among patients is recommended to decrease frivolous lawsuits. Further investigation to improve the lengthy judicial process is also necessary to relieve the stress of medical malpractice claims on clinicians and practitioners, as well as on the judicial system and rightful claimants.

A comparison of medical litigation filed against obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine, and surgery departments

Background

The aim of this study was to review the typical factors related to physician’s liability in obstetrics and gynecology departments, as compared to those in internal medicine and surgery, regarding a breach of the duty to explain.

Methods

This study involved analyzing 366 medical litigation case reports from 1990 through 2008 where the duty to explain was disputed. We examined relationships between patients, physicians, variables related to physician’s explanations, and physician’s breach of the duty to explain by comparing mean values and percentages in obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine, and surgical departments with the t-test and χ² test.

Results

When we compared the reasons for decisions in cases where the patient won, we found that the percentage of cases in which the patient’s claim was recognized was the highest for both physician negligence, including errors of judgment and procedural mistakes, and breach of the duty to explain, in obstetrics and gynecology departments; breach of the duty to explain alone in internal medicine departments; and mistakes in medical procedures alone in surgical departments (p = 0.008). When comparing patients, the rate of death was significantly higher than that of other outcomes in precedents where a breach of the duty to explain was acknowledged (p = 0.046). The proportion of cases involving obstetrics and gynecology departments, in which care was claimed to be substandard at the time of treatment, and that were not argued as breach of a duty to explain, was significantly higher than those of other evaluated departments (p <0.001). However, internal medicine and surgical departments were very similar in this context. In obstetrics and gynecology departments, the proportion of cases in which it had been conceded that the duty to explain had been breached when seeking patient approval (or not) was significantly higher than in other departments (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

It is important for physicians working in obstetrics and gynecology departments to carefully explain the risk of death associated with any planned procedure, and to obtain genuinely informed patient consent.

High and low-risk specialties experience with the U.S. medical malpractice system

Background

“High-liability risk specialties” tend to be the focus of medical malpractice system research and debate, but concerns and fears are not limited to this group. The objective of this study was to examine whether “high-liability risk” medical specialties have a different experience with the malpractice system than “low-liability risk” specialties.

Methods

We reviewed claims data from the Physician Insurers Association of America’s Data Sharing Project between January 1985 and December 2008. We used linear regression, controlling for year, to determine how liability risk affected outcomes of interest.

Results

In high-liability risk specialties, 33% of claims result in indemnity payments compared to 28% for low-liability risk specialties (p < 0.001). The average indemnity payment for high-liability risk specialties was $315,314 compared to $267,146 for low-liability risk specialties (p = 0.25). Although only a small percentage of claims go to trial, low-liability risk specialties have significantly more claims that are ultimately dropped, withdrawn or dismissed, while high-liability risk specialties have significantly more claims that result in plaintiff settlement (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Malpractice risk exists for all specialties. Variability in indemnity costs are found in both high- and low-liability risk specialties. Differences in the reasons for which claims are initiated for high- and low-liability risk specialties likely necessitate different risk management solutions.

Maternity care and liability: pressing problems, substantive solutions

BACKGROUND

This paper summarizes a new report presenting the best available research about the impact of the liability environment on maternity care, and policy options for improving this environment. Improved understanding of these matters can help to transcend polarized discourse and guide policy intervention.

METHODS

We used a best available evidence approach and drew on more recent empirical legal studies and health services research about maternity care and liability when available, and considered other studies when unavailable.

FINDINGS

The best available research does not support a series of widely held beliefs about maternity care and liability, including the economic impact of liability insurance premiums on maternity care clinicians, the existence of extensive defensive maternity care practice, and the impact of limiting the size of awards for non-economic damages in a malpractice lawsuit. In the practice of an average maternity caregiver, negligent injury of mothers and newborns seems to occur more frequently than any claim and far more frequently than a payout or trial. Many important gaps in knowledge relating to maternity care and liability remain. Some improvement strategies are likely to be more effective than others.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical research does not support many widely held beliefs about maternity care and liability. The liability system does not currently serve well childbearing women and newborns, maternity care clinicians, or those who pay for maternity care. A number of promising strategies might lead to a higher functioning liability system, whereas others are unlikely to contribute to needed improvements.

Research priorities for administrative challenges of integrated networks of care

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) advanced the concept of "coordinated, regionalized, and accountable emergency care systems" to address significant problems with the delivery of emergency medical care in the United States. Achieving this vision requires the thoughtful implementation of well-aligned, system-level structures and processes that enhance access to emergency care and improve patient outcomes at a sustainable cost. Currently, the delivery of emergency medical care is supported by numerous administrative systems, including economic; reimbursement; legal and regulatory structures; licensure, credentialing, and accreditation processes; medicolegal systems; and quality reporting mechanisms. In addition, many regionalized systems may not optimize patient outcomes because of current administrative barriers that make it difficult for providers to deliver the best care. However, certain administrative barriers may also threaten the sustainability of integration efforts or prevent them altogether. This article identifies significant administrative challenges to integrating networks of emergency care in four specific areas: reimbursement, medical-legal, quality reporting mechanisms, and regulatory aspects. The authors propose a research agenda for indentifying optimal approaches that support consistent access to quality emergency care with improved outcomes for patients, at a sustainable cost. Researching administrative challenges will involve careful examination of the numerous natural experiments in the recent past and will be crucial to understand the impact as we embark on a new era of health reform.

Malpractice Premiums and the Supply of Obstetricians

Using longitudinal data on practicing obstetricians from 1998 to 2004 derived from Pennsylvania, Florida, and New York hospital discharge data, this study finds that rising malpractice premiums are associated with an increased rate of exit and a reduced rate of entry for obstetricians. In Pennsylvania and Florida, where premiums rose by an average of 20% per year for four years, the combined effect of more exits and fewer entries was associated with a decline in obstetrical labor supply of 80 physicians, or 5.3% of the supply of obstetricians.

The impact of malpractice liability claims on obstetrical practice patterns

OBJECTIVES

This paper examines whether malpractice claims have any impact on obstetrical practice patterns (C-section rates) and physician delivery volume.

DATA SOURCES

Secondary data from the 1992-2000 Florida Hospital Inpatient Discharge File, the Florida Medical Professional Liability Insurance Claims File, and the American Medical Association's Master File on physician characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN

The effects of malpractice claims on C-section rates and physician delivery volume were estimated using panel data and a fixed-effects multivariate model.

DATA COLLECTION

Variables were constructed from each data source and merged into a single panel dataset using consistent physician identifiers. Principal Findings. I did not find evidence that physicians changed their practice patterns by increasing C-section rates in response to malpractice claims. However, physicians performed six fewer inpatient deliveries 3 years after the closing of a malpractice claim, after controlling for individual- and market-level characteristics. Physicians with high malpractice awards of U.S.$250,000 or more performed 14 fewer deliveries on average.

CONCLUSIONS

Malpractice claims led to a small reduction in physician delivery volume, but they did not have a significant impact on C-section rates.

Malpractice risk: trauma care versus other surgical and medical specialties

BACKGROUND

Medical malpractice has been noted to play an important role in physicians' decisions to pursue or remain in certain presumed high-risk specialties such as trauma surgery, despite little evidence suggesting an elevated malpractice risk. The objective of this study was to compare the malpractice experience for trauma care and other medical and surgical specialties at an academic medical center.

METHODS

Information regarding all potentially compensable medical events (hereafter "events") and actual lawsuits that occurred between 2003 and 2006 at one academic medical institution, including the department or service primarily involved, the current medical-legal disposition of the event, and the actual or expected expenses was obtained. The number of patients admitted to each service and the time they spent in the hospital was also obtained, and the number of events per capita and length of stay was calculated.

RESULTS

Among the 13 medical and surgical specialties considered, there were 194 total events, 183,392 patients seen, and 757,880 days of hospitalization. The trauma service had the fewest events and lawsuits per 10,000 patient-days and ranked 10th (11th for lawsuits) on a per capita basis, and 9th in total estimated cost.

CONCLUSIONS

With the fewest events and lawsuits per patient days and a relatively low amount set aside for claims, trauma care has better claim experience than almost every other clinical service line. Although these results have some limitations, they refute the perception that trauma care is a higher medicolegal risk. This observation should not be cited as a disincentive for surgeons to provide trauma care.