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

BMC Medical Ethics

Akihito Hagihara²  Tomoko Hamasaki¹ 

[1] Department of Nutrition Faculty of Home Economics, Kyushu Women’s University 1-1 Jiyugaoka Yahatanishi, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka 807-8586, Japan;Department of Health Services Management and Policy, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medicine, Fukuoka 812-8582, Higashi-ku, Japan

关键词: Obstetrics and gynecology;    Departments;    Duty to explain;    Medical litigation;   

Others  :  1230322
DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-015-0065-1

 received in 2014-11-18, accepted in 2015-10-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

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 χ ²test.

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Hamasaki and Hagihara.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sloan FA, Mergenhagen PM, Burfield WB, Bovbjerg RR, Hassan M. Medical malpractice experience of physicians. Predictable or haphazard? JAMA. 1989; 262(23):3291-3297.
• [2]Mello MM, Studdert DM, Schumi J, Brennan TA, Sage WM. Changes in physician supply and scope of practice during a malpractice crisis: evidence from Pennsylvania. Health Aff. 2007; 26(3):w425-435.
• [3]Bovbjerg RR, Petronis KR. The relationship between physicians’ malpractice claims history and later claims. Does the past predict the future? JAMA. 1994; 272(18):1421-1426.
• [4]Baker SR, Whang JS, Luk L, Clarkin KS, Castro A, Patel R. The demography of medical malpractice suits against radiologists. Radiology. 2013; 266(2):539-547.
• [5]Statistics and information department, minister's, secretariat, ministry of health, labour and welfare: Vital statistics in Japan. 2014. p.15-25.
• [6]Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Laird NM, Hebert LE, Peterson LM et al.. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med. 1991; 325(4):245-251.
• [7]Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997; 277(7):553-559.
• [8]Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Entman SS, Miller CS, Githens PB, Whetten-Goldstein K et al.. Obstetricians’ prior malpractice experience and patients’ satisfaction with care. JAMA. 1994; 272(20):1583-1587.
• [9]de Reuver PR, Wind J, Cremers JE, Busch OR, van Gulik TM, Gouma DJ. Litigation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an evaluation of the Dutch arbitration system for medical malpractice. J Am Coll Surg. 2008; 206(2):328-334.
• [10]Brenner RJ, Bartholomew L. Communication errors in radiology: a liability cost analysis. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2005; 2(5):428-431.
• [11]Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994; 154(12):1365-1370.
• [12]Flannery FT, Parikh PD, Oetgen WJ. Characteristics of medical professional liability claims in patients treated by family medicine physicians. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2010; 23(6):753-761.
• [13]Shih MJ, Vidovich MI. Medicolegal characteristics of aortic stenosis litigation: a review of the LexisNexis Academic database. J Heart Valve Dis. 2010; 19(5):599-604.
• [14]Krause HR, Bremerich A, Rustemeyer J. Reasons for patients’ discontent and litigation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001; 29(3):181-183.
• [15]Cook TM, Bland L, Mihai R, Scott S. Litigation related to anaesthesia: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995–2007. Anaesthesia. 2009; 64(7):706-718.
• [16]Whang JS, Baker SR, Patel R, Luk L, Castro A. The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States. Radiology. 2013; 266(2):548-554.
• [17]Hamasaki T, Takehara T, Hagihara A. Physicians’ communication skills with patients and legal liability in decided medical malpractice litigation cases in Japan. BMC Fam Pract. 2008; 9:43. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Hamasaki T, Soh I, Takehara T, Hagihara A. Applicability of both dentist and patient perceptions of dentists’ explanations to the evaluation of dentist-patient communication. Community Dent Health. 2011; 28(4):274-279.
• [19]Hamasaki T, Hagihara A. Physicians’ explanatory behaviours and legal liability in decided medical malpractice litigation cases in Japan. BMC Med Ethics. 2011; 12:7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Hagihara A, Tarumi K. Association between physicians’ communicative behaviors and judges’ decisions in lawsuits on negligent care. Health Policy. 2007; 83(2–3):213-222.
• [21]Hagihara A, Nishi M, Nobutomo K. Standard of care and liability in medical malpractice litigation in Japan. Health Policy. 2003; 65(2):119-127.
• [22]Hagihara A, Nishi M, Abe E, Nobutomo K. The structure of medical malpractice decision-making in Japan. J Law Med. 2003; 11(2):162-184.
• [23]Hagihara A, Hamasaki T, Abe T. Association between physician explanatory behaviors and substandard care in adjudicated cases in Japan. International Journal of General Medicine. 2011; 4:289-297.
• [24]Kiuchi A, Matsumura Y, Kyakuno M, Nosaka S, Maeda S, Ehara K. Judgements on Medical Accidents Related to Accountability. The Journal of the Japan Society for Clinical Anesthesia. 2006; 26(7):742-749.
• [25]Hickson GB, Federspiel CF, Pichert JW, Miller CS, Gauld-Jaeger J, Bost P. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA. 2002; 287(22):2951-2957.
• [26]Hickson GB, Federspiel CF, Blackford J, Pichert JW, Gaska W, Merrigan MW et al.. Patient complaints and malpractice risk in a regional healthcare center. South Med J. 2007; 100(8):791-796.
• [27]Hickson GB, Entman SS. Physician practice behavior and litigation risk: evidence and opportunity. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 51(4):688-699.
• [28]Chen SL, Jane SW, Yu YM, Hsieh YS. Discrepancy between physicians’ perceptions and practices during pelvic examinations in Taiwan. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 74(1):124-129.
• [29]Xu X, Siefert KA, Jacobson PD, Lori JR, Gueorguieva I, Ransom SB. Malpractice burden, rural location, and discontinuation of obstetric care: a study of obstetric providers in Michigan. J Rural Health. 2009; 25(1):33-42.