No abstract

Italy and South Korea have two distinctly different healthcare systems, causing them to respond to public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic in markedly different ways. Differences exist in medical education for both countries, allowing South Korean medical graduates to have a more holistic education in comparison to their Italian counterparts, who specialize in medical education earlier on. Additionally, there are fewer South Korean physicians per 1000 people in South Korea compared to Italian physicians per 1000 people in Italy. However, both countries have a national healthcare system with universal healthcare coverage. Despite this underlying similarity, the two countries addressed COVID-19 in nearly opposite manners. South Korea employed technology and the holistic education of its physician community, despite having a smaller proportion of physicians in society, to its advantage by implementing efficacious drive-through centers that test suspected individuals rapidly and with little to no contact with healthcare staff, decreasing the possibility of transmission of COVID-19. Conversely, Italy is presently considered the epicenter of the outbreak in Europe and has recorded the highest death toll of any country outside of mainland China. This is partially due to the reactionary nature of Italy’s public health measures compared to South Korea’s proactive response. The different healthcare responses of South Korea and Italy can inform decisions made by public health bodies in other countries, especially in countries across the Americas, which can selectively adopt policies that have worked in curtailing the spread of COVID-19 and learn from mistakes made by both countries.

Background: Medical malpractice litigations are common for cardiac surgeons, and congenital cardiac surgeons are uniquely held accountable by patients, who are minors, and their families. Therefore, it is imperative for physicians to be cognizant of clinically effective and legally tenable practices. Methods: The Westlaw legal research service was utilized to collect medical malpractice litigations from 1994 to 2019 pertaining to congenital cardiac surgery, inclusive, in the United States. Court documents were manually screened, with 177 litigations satisfying criteria for inclusion. Data collection included patient demographics, verdict and litigation characteristics, and clinical data. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the significance of association. Results: Across the 177 litigations, 44% had defendant verdicts, 30% had plaintiff verdicts, and 26% had settlements. The average plaintiff award was $9,363,710, and the average settlement was $4,141,825. Patient mortality occurred in 87 cases (49.2%), and wrongful death claims were argued in 71 cases (40%). The most common reason for litigation were procedural errors (79 cases, 45%). The most frequent clinical event was cardiac arrest (95 cases, 54%). California recorded the most litigations (34 cases, 19.2%). Defendant verdicts were significantly associated with cardiac arrest, procedural errors, and permanent neurological injury (p < .05). Conclusions: Defendant's verdicts were more common in cases with patient mortality, which had lower average plaintiff awards and settlements, since future healthcare expenses are inapplicable to this cohort. Future litigations can be minimized with an emphasis on reducing procedural errors, treating and diagnosing patients timely, and monitoring patients sufficiently.