Background: The phenomenon of clinical negligence claims has rapidly spread to United States, Canada and Europe assuming the dimensions and the severity of a pandemia. Consequently, the issues related to medical malpractice need to be studied from a transnational perspective since they raise similar problems in different legal systems. Methods: Over the last two decades, medical liability has become a prominent issue in healthcare policy and a major concern for healthcare economics in Italy. The failures of the liability system and the high cost of healthcare have led to considerable legislative activity concerning medical malpractice liability, and a law was enacted in 2012 (Law no. 189/2012), known as the “Balduzzi Law”. Results: The law tackles the mounting concern over litigation related to medical malpractice and calls for Italian physicians to follow guidelines. Briefly, the law provided for the decriminalisation of simple negligence of a physician on condition that he/she followed the guidelines and “good medical practice” while carrying out his/her duties, whilst the obligation for compensation, as defined by the Italian Civil Code, remained. Judges had to consider that the physician followed the provisions of the guidelines but nevertheless caused injury to the patient. Conclusion: However, since the emission of the law, thorny questions remain which have attracted renewed interest and criticism both in the Italian courts and legal literature. Since then, several bills have been presented on the topic and these have been merged into a single text entitled “Regulations for healthcare and patient safety and for the professional responsibility of healthcare providers”.

Background While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. Methods From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. Results A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. Conclusion The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures.

Maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity associated with childbirth is a problem of the highest priority. This research has been aimed at testing a modified version of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in one Italian hospital and to evaluate the tool in terms of its impact on clinical practice and safety. Results show that the presence of correctly compiled partogram tool is strongly and significantly associated with the checklist implementation (OR = 14.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.5, 63.9). Compliance to the checklist was high for mid-wives (96%) and very low for obstetricians (3%). The discrepancy is the result of a misinterpretation by obstetricians: they signed only in case they prescribed therapy or when they identified risk factors, but not to underline that they checked for those factors independently by their existence. While the checklist promotes the interdisciplinary work, field studies generally show strong hierarchical rather than partnership interaction. Practitioner Summary: The study is aimed at evaluating: the checklist impact on clinical practice through a prospective pre- and post-intervention study based on clinical records review, the usability of the tool and the user's compliance. The research gives evidences on the importance of the tool for reducing risks related to delivery.

No abstract

Several of the key organizational issues that we have had to face with the emergence of COVID-19 crisis are related to human factors/ergonomics (HFE) and the safety culture. During the crisis the main activities of the healthcare services have been profoundly affected. Patient safety and risk management units have also experienced the need to adapt rapidly. What can we do as HFE experts, now that the scenario has completely changed? We contend that: (a) we can favour and support the heuristics that are applied to manage the load of psycho-cognitive stress. (b) We can observe, collect strategies and develop analytic schemes, thereby creating a memory of the organization for improvement in the future. (c) And we can support in educating and engaging the public. This crisis has forced the community of healthcare experts to broaden their reflections: for the future to come, our communities of experts in the field of risk management HF/E, quality and safety of care and public health should play together an important role from the very beginning, from the time of peace.