Characteristics of paid malpractice claims settled in and out of court in the USA: a retrospective analysis

Rubin, Jessica B.; Bishop, Tara F.

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002985

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The duration of the settled claims in Thailand is not different from both China and the United States, which take about a year (Li et al, ; Studdert et al, ). Moreover, many studies have shown that the payments for claims settled out of court are lower than the claims judged in court (Rubin & Bishop, ). In the United States, the average payment for settlements has been approximately 1.7–2.4 times lower than judgements (Chandra, Nundy, & Seabury, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Medical Malpractice Litigation in Thailand: Cases from Government‐Run Hospitals

Patanavanich¹,

Suriyawongpaisal²,

Aekplakorn³

2018

World Med & Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current malpractice policy debates have been contentious in Thailand for years. There is a lack of a national database for malpractice claims to provide comprehensive information to policymakers; therefore, the development of policy related to malpractice has been prolonged. This study uses the best available data to create a database and describe characteristics of medical malpractice cases in Thailand during 1996–2016. Like many countries, cases related to pregnancy and childbirth are the most common cause of malpractice lawsuits. Unlike other countries, general practice physicians in Thailand are sued the most. The proportions of wrongful death claims were higher in community hospitals, among physician interns, and on weekends. Moreover, a no‐fault provision appears to help settling claims out of court. To develop a success policy, Thailand needs to establish a national database for malpractice claims. Furthermore, expanding the no‐fault provision to all types of health insurance could be a desirable policy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Medical Malpractice Litigation in Thailand: Cases from Government‐Run Hospitals

Patanavanich¹,

Suriyawongpaisal²,

Aekplakorn³

2018

World Med & Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, several limitations of this study should be noted. First, although we used the largest claims database in Japan (similar to previous studies [12,29,32,33]), the data were not nationally representative of all malpractice claims. Second, there are no existing data on the frequency with which adverse events lead to malpractice claims in Japan.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Factors and impact of physicians’ diagnostic errors in malpractice claims in Japan

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Diagnostic errors are prevalent and associated with increased economic burden; however, little is known about their characteristics at the national level in Japan. This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and indemnity payment in cases of diagnostic errors using Japan's largest database of national claims. Methods We analyzed characteristics of diagnostic error cases closed between 1961 and 2017, accessed through the national Japanese malpractice claims database. We compared diagnostic error-related claims (DERC) with non-diagnostic error-related claims (non-DERC) in terms of indemnity, clinical outcomes, and factors underlying physicians' diagnostic errors. Results All 1,802 malpractice claims were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 33 years (interquartile range = 10-54), and 54.2% were men. Deaths were the most common outcome of claims (939/1747; 53.8%). In total, 709 (39.3%, 95% CI: 37.0%-41.6%) DERC cases were observed. The adjusted total billing amount, acceptance rate, adjusted median claims payments, and proportion of deaths were significantly higher in DERC than non-DERC cases. Departments of internal medicine and surgery were 1.42 and 1.55 times more likely, respectively, to have DERC cases than others. Claims involving the emergency room (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.88) and outpatient office (adjusted OR = 2.87) were more likely to be DERC than other cases. The initial diagnoses most likely to lead to diagnostic error were upper respiratory tract infection, non-bleeding digestive tract disease, and "no abnormality." Conclusions Cases of diagnostic errors produced severe patient outcomes and were associated with high indemnity. These cases were frequently noted in general exam and emergency rooms

show abstract

“…Medical lawsuits are time-consuming and economically and psychologically burdensome. Several epidemiological and observational studies of the frequency of malpractice claims and the magnitude of awarded compensation indicate that diagnostic errors are a significant cause of medical liti- gation (5,(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). In general, it is difficult to estimate the actual frequency of errors from epidemiological studies' data of medical litigation because of selection bias in the trial process and in settlements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Malpractice Claims of Internal Medicine Involving Diagnostic and System Errors in Japan

Watari

2021

Intern. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Medical litigation resulting from diagnostic errors leads to lawsuits that are time-consuming, expensive, and psychologically burdensome. Few studies have focused on internists, who are more likely to make diagnostic errors than others, with assessments of litigation in terms of system and diagnostic errors. This study explored factors contributing to internists losing lawsuits and examined whether system or diagnostic errors were more important on the outcome. Methods Data regarding 419 lawsuits against internists closed between 1961 and 2017 were extracted from a public Japanese database. Factors affecting litigation outcomes were identified by comparative analysis focusing on system and diagnostic errors, environmental factors, and differences in initial diagnoses. Results Overall, 419 malpractice claims against internists were analyzed. The rate of lawsuits being decided against internists was high (50.1%). The primary cause of litigation was diagnostic errors (213, 54%), followed by system errors (188, 45%). The foremost initial diagnostic error was "no abnormality" (17.2%) followed by ischemic heart disease (9.6%) and malignant neoplasm (8.1%). Following cause-adjustment for loss, system errors were 21.37 times more likely to lead to a loss. Losses were 6.26 times higher for diagnostic error cases, 2.49 times higher for errors occurring at night, and 3.44 times higher when "malignant neoplasm" was the first diagnosis. Conclusions This study found that system errors strongly contributed to internists' losses. Diagnostic errors, night shifts, and initial diagnoses of malignant neoplasms also significantly affected trial outcomes. Administrators must focus on both system errors and diagnostic errors to enhance the safety of patients and reduce internists' risk exposure.

show abstract

Characteristics of paid malpractice claims settled in and out of court in the USA: a retrospective analysis

Cited by 23 publications

References 15 publications

Characteristics of Medical Malpractice Litigation in Thailand: Cases from Government‐Run Hospitals

Characteristics of Medical Malpractice Litigation in Thailand: Cases from Government‐Run Hospitals

Factors and impact of physicians’ diagnostic errors in malpractice claims in Japan

Malpractice Claims of Internal Medicine Involving Diagnostic and System Errors in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About