Malpractice Litigation Related to Diagnosis and Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms

Orthopedic Surgeons at Greater Risk of Malpractice Claims for Treatment of Primary Malignant Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Compared With Metastatic Bone Disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine cases of malpractice litigation in primary sarcoma and metastatic bone disease in orthopedic oncology, to identify the areas in which orthopedic surgeons may be guilty of negligence, and to make them aware of this.

METHODS

A comprehensive examination was conducted on all closed medical malpractice cases involving bone and soft tissue malignant tumors from 2014 to 2024. Patient demographics, histopathological diagnosis, and malpractice claims made in a variety of specialties were recorded. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study resulted in the inclusion of 70 cases of primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma and 36 cases of metastatic bone disease.

RESULTS

A total of 47 primary tumors were bone sarcoma and 23 were soft tissue sarcoma. A total of 11 patients with primary sarcoma were accepted for malpractice claims, representing 16% of all cases within this category. Nevertheless, no evidence of malpractice was identified among the patients with metastatic bone disease (p = 0.012). Orthopedists (44 of 85 defendants), pathologists (14 of 85 defendants), and radiologists (7 of 85 defendants) were the most common defendants in primary sarcoma malpractice cases. Surgeons other than orthopedists (21 of 49 defendants), medical oncologists (4 of 49 defendants), and radiation oncologists (4 of 49 defendants) were the most common defendants in metastatic bone disease malpractice cases.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of our cases suggests that malpractice claims are more likely filed against orthopedic surgeons for the treatment of primary malignant bone and soft tissue tumors than for metastatic bone disease.

Shift Volume Directly Impacts Neuroradiology Error Rate at a Large Academic Medical Center: The Case for Volume Limits

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Unlike in Europe and Japan, guidelines or recommendations from specialized radiological societies on workflow management and adaptive intervention to reduce error rates are currently lacking in the United States. This study of neuroradiologic reads at a large US academic medical center, which may hopefully contribute to this discussion, found a direct relationship between error rate and shift volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT and MR imaging reports from our institution's Neuroradiology Quality Assurance database (years 2014-2020) were searched for attending physician errors. Data were collected on shift volume specific error rates per 1000 interpreted studies and RADPEER scores. Optimal cutoff points for 2, 3 and 4 groups of shift volumes were computed along with subgroups' error rates.

RESULTS

A total of 643 errors were found, 91.7% of which were clinically significant (RADPEER 2b, 3b). The overall error rate (errors/1000 examinations) was 2.36. The best single shift volume cutoff point generated 2 groups: ≤ 26 studies (error rate 1.59) and > 26 studies (2.58; OR: 1.63, P < .001). The best 2 shift volume cutoff points generated 3 shift volume groups: ≤ 19 (1.34), 20-28 (1.88; OR: 1.4, P = .1) and ≥ 29 (2.6; OR: 1.94, P < .001). The best 3 shift volume cutoff points generated 4 groups: ≤ 24 (1.59), 25-66 (2.44; OR: 1.54, P < .001), 67-90 (3.03; OR: 1.91, P < .001), and ≥ 91 (2.07; OR: 1.30, P = .25). The group with shift volume ≥ 91 had a limited sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower shift volumes yielded significantly lower error rates. The lowest error rates were observed with shift volumes that were limited to 19-26 studies. Error rates at shift volumes between 67-90 studies were 226% higher, compared with the error rate at shift volumes of ≤ 19 studies.

Contrast Agent Administration as a Source of Liability: A Legal Database Analysis

Background Radiology ranks high in terms of specialties implicated in medical malpractice claims. While most radiologists understand the risks of liability for missed findings or lapses of communication, liability for the use of contrast agents in imaging procedures may be underappreciated. Purpose To review the clinical context and outcomes of lawsuits alleging medical malpractice for contrast-related imaging procedures. Materials and Methods Two large U.S. legal databases were queried using the terms "Contrast" and "Radiology OR Radiologist" from database inception to October 31, 2022, to identify cases with published decisions or settlements related to medical malpractice in patients who underwent contrast-related imaging procedures. The search results were screened to include only those cases involving the practice area of health care law where there was at least one claim of medical negligence against a health care institution or provider. Data on the medical complications alleged by patients after contrast agent administration and on the trial were extracted and reported using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 151 published case summaries were included in the analysis. Anaphylactic reaction following contrast agent administration was the most common medical complication observed (30% [45 of 151 cases]), of which failure to diagnose developing anaphylaxis or failure to treat the anaphylactic reaction made up the majority of allegations (93% [42 of 45]). Inappropriate management of contrast media extravasation (27% [41 of 151]) and alleged contrast agent-induced acute kidney injury (13% [19 of 151]) were the next most frequent causes of lawsuits. Of the 11 cases of alleged kidney injury that went to trial, all resulted in a judgment in favor of the defense. Conclusion This study highlights the key reasons for medical malpractice lawsuits associated with use of contrast media and outcomes from these lawsuits. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Trop in this issue.