Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the original publication [...]

In this study, we consider the human body and the healthcare system as two complex networks and use theories regarding entropy, requisite variety, and network centrality metrics with resilience to assess and quantify the strengths and weaknesses of healthcare systems. Entropy is used to quantify the uncertainty and variety regarding a patient’s health state. The extent of the entropy defines the requisite variety a healthcare system should contain to be able to treat a patient safely and correctly. We use network centrality metrics to visualize and quantify the healthcare system as a network and assign the strengths and weaknesses of the network and of individual agents in the network. We apply organization design theories to formulate improvements and explain how a healthcare system should adjust to create a more robust and resilient healthcare system that is able to continuously deal with variations and uncertainties regarding a patient’s health, despite possible stressors and disturbances at the healthcare system. In this article, these concepts and theories are explained and applied to a fictive and a real-life example. We conclude that entropy and network science can be used as tools to quantify the resilience of healthcare systems.

Background An increased interest in medical liability claims has been noticed. Nevertheless, detailed data on subject of claims and possible factors that contribute to litigation and indemnity payments are scarce and relatively dated. Insight into these data may provide valuable information to prevent both incidents and malpractice claims. Objective To analyse the subject, outcome and costs of malpractice claims related to gynaecological care and their connection with treatment indications and treatment phases. Design A retrospective analysis of malpractice claims related to gynaecology. Setting All claims related to gynaecology, filed and closed by Netherlands’ largest liability insurance company, Centramed between 2005 and 2022. Sample N  = 382. Methods An in-depth analysis of claim files was performed. Results A total of 68.6% of the claims were related to perioperative incidents. A total of 88.0% of all claims were related to treatments with a benign indication and only 12.0% were related to malignancies. The share of malignant treatment indications was high for claims related to diagnostic incidents (37.9%), compared to 7.3% for claims related to surgical treatment. Liability was accepted in 22.5% of all claims. The total costs of all claims amount €6,6mlj. Besides the indication for treatment, deficient expectation management (a lack of informed consent) contributes to dissatisfaction and increases the risk of malpractice claims. Finally, an inadequate medical file compromises legal defence and influences the judgement and settlement of malpractice claims. Conclusions There is a connection between treatment indications and treatment phases and the risk of malpractice claims and their outcome.

In previous studies, surgical specialties accounted for most malpractice claims. The objective of the present study was to determine the risk for malpractice claims for physicians working in hospitals. A retrospective observational study using anonymized closed malpractice claims between 2007 up to 2021 from two Dutch insurers was carried out. Main outcomes involved claim volume & outcome, and the estimated annual risk (EAR) for a claim per year for the individual physician from all specialties. Sustained or settled claims were considered unfavorable for the physician (UOP). Surgical specialists, involving surgical specialties and specialties with surgical characteristics accounted for 77% (14,330/18,649) of the claims closed. Liability was denied in 51% of the claims ( n  = 9,487). The remaining claims were sustained (granted) ( n  = 4,600; 25%), settled ( n  = 3,444; 18%) or closed without decision ( n  = 1118; 6%). Surgeons faced an average EAR of 21.6% (range 6.5 − 28%) which was higher compared to colleagues from specialties with surgical characteristics (EAR 7.3%; range 2.9 − 10.1%) and non-surgical specialties (EAR 2.5%; range 0.9 − 4.4%). Surgical specialists received more claims than their non-surgical colleagues. Relative to specialty size, surgeons faced a higher risk for a claim in general, as well as for a claim with an unfavorable outcome.

Background: Quality strategies, interventions, and frameworks have been developed to facilitate a better understanding of healthcare systems. Reporting adverse events is one of these strategies. Gynaecology and obstetrics are one of the specialties with many adverse events. To understand the main causes of medical errors in gynaecology and obstetrics and how they could be prevented, we conducted this systematic review. Methods: This systematic review was performed in compliance with the Prisma 2020 guidelines. We searched several databases for relevant studies (Jan 2010–May 2023). Studies were included if they indicated the presence of any potential risk factor at the hospital level for medical errors or adverse events in gynaecology or obstetrics. Results: We included 26 articles in the quantitative analysis of this review. Most of these (n = 12) are cross-sectional studies; eight are case–control studies, and six are cohort studies. One of the most frequently reported contributing factors is delay in healthcare. In addition, the availability of products and trained staff, team training, and communication are often reported to contribute to near-misses/maternal deaths. Conclusions: All risk factors that were found in our review imply several categories of contributing factors regarding: (1) delay of care, (2) coordination and management of care, and (3) scarcity of supply, personnel, and knowledge.

Recent data on number of claims, final judgement of claims and their costs are scarce. This study analyzes 15 years of malpractice claims in the Netherlands. All claims filed, and all claims closed by two insurance companies (which insure approximately 95% of all hospitals in the Netherlands) between 2007–2021 are included. Trends in number of claims, medical specialties involved, final judgements and costs from malpractice claims are analyzed, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on malpractice claims. In total, 20,726 claims were filed and 21,826 claims were closed. Since 2013, the number of claims filed decreased. Of all claims filed, 64% were aimed at surgical specialties and 18% at contemplative specialties. Of all claims closed, 24.49% were accepted, 19.26% were settled and 48.94% got rejected. The financial burden of all claims closed quadrupled between 2007 and 2021; this increase was caused by rare cases with excessively high costs. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in the number of claims filed, and the number of incidents reported. This study provides valuable insights into trends and developments in the number and costs of liability claims, which is the first step towards improving patient safety and preventing incidents and malpractice claims.

Background The success of newly introduced surgical techniques is generally primarily assessed by surgical outcome measures. However, data on medical liability should concomitantly be used to evaluate provided care as they give a unique insight into substandard care from patient’s point of view. The aim of this study was to analyze the number and type of medical claims after laparoscopic gynecologic procedures since the introduction of advanced laparoscopy two decades ago. Secondly, our objective was to identify trends and/or risk factors associated with these claims. Methods To identify the claims, we searched the databases of the two largest medical liability mutual insurance companies in The Netherlands (MediRisk and Centramed), covering together 96% of the Dutch hospitals. All claims related to laparoscopic gynecologic surgery and filed between 1993 and 2015 were included. Results A total of 133 claims met our inclusion criteria, of which 54 were accepted claims (41%) and 79 rejected (59%). The number of claims remained relatively constant over time. The majority of claims were filed for visceral and/or vascular injuries (82%), specifically to the bowel (40%) and ureters (20%). More than one-third of the injuries were entry related (38%) and 77% of the claims were filed after non-advanced procedures. A delay in diagnosing injuries was the primary reason for financial compensation (33%). The median sum paid to patients was €12,000 (500–848,689). In 90 claims, an attorney was defending the patient (83% for the accepted claims; 57% for the rejected claims). Conclusion The number of claims remained relatively constant during the study period. Most claims were provoked by bowel and ureter injuries. Delay in recognizing injuries was the most encountered reason for granting financial compensation. Entering the abdominal cavity during laparoscopy continues to be a potential dangerous step. As a result, gynecologists are recommended to thoroughly counsel patients undergoing any laparoscopic procedure, even regarding the risk of entry-related injuries.