Explore the vast range of titles available.

To promote communication with patients after medical injuries and improve patient safety, numerous hospitals have implemented communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs). Through these programs, hospitals communicate transparently with patients after adverse events; investigate what happened and offer an explanation; and, when warranted, apologize, take responsibility, and proactively offer compensation. Despite growing consensus that CRPs are the right thing to do, concerns over liability risks remain. We evaluated the liability effects of CRP implementation at four Massachusetts hospitals by examining before-and-after trends in claims volume, cost, and time to resolution and comparing them to trends among nonimplementing peer institutions. CRP implementation was associated with improved trends in the rate of new claims and legal defense costs at some hospitals, but it did not significantly alter trends in other outcomes. None of the hospitals experienced worsening liability trends after CRP implementation, which suggests that transparency, apology, and proactive compensation can be pursued without adverse financial consequences.

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.

Policy Points With increasing integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning in medicine, there are concerns that algorithm inaccuracy could lead to patient injury and medical liability. While prior work has focused on medical malpractice, the artificial intelligence ecosystem consists of multiple stakeholders beyond clinicians. Current liability frameworks are inadequate to encourage both safe clinical implementation and disruptive innovation of artificial intelligence. Several policy options could ensure a more balanced liability system, including altering the standard of care, insurance, indemnification, special/no‐fault adjudication systems, and regulation. Such liability frameworks could facilitate safe and expedient implementation of artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical care.

Background We sought to characterise the frequency, health outcomes and economic consequences of diagnostic errors in the USA through analysis of closed, paid malpractice claims. Methods We analysed diagnosis-related claims from the National Practitioner Data Bank (1986–2010). We describe error type, outcome severity and payments (in 2011 US dollars), comparing diagnostic errors to other malpractice allegation groups and inpatient to outpatient within diagnostic errors. Results We analysed 350 706 paid claims. Diagnostic errors (n=100 249) were the leading type (28.6%) and accounted for the highest proportion of total payments (35.2%). The most frequent outcomes were death, significant permanent injury, major permanent injury and minor permanent injury. Diagnostic errors more often resulted in death than other allegation groups (40.9% vs 23.9%, p<0.001) and were the leading cause of claims-associated death and disability. More diagnostic error claims were outpatient than inpatient (68.8% vs 31.2%, p<0.001), but inpatient diagnostic errors were more likely to be lethal (48.4% vs 36.9%, p<0.001). The inflation-adjusted, 25-year sum of diagnosis-related payments was US$38.8 billion (mean per-claim payout US$386 849; median US$213 250; IQR US$74 545–484 500). Per-claim payments for permanent, serious morbidity that was ‘quadriplegic, brain damage, lifelong care’ (4.5%; mean US$808 591; median US$564 300), ‘major’ (13.3%; mean US$568 599; median US$355 350), or ‘significant’ (16.9%; mean US$419 711; median US$269 255) exceeded those where the outcome was death (40.9%; mean US$390 186; median US$251 745). Conclusions Among malpractice claims, diagnostic errors appear to be the most common, most costly and most dangerous of medical mistakes. We found roughly equal numbers of lethal and non-lethal errors in our analysis, suggesting that the public health burden of diagnostic errors could be twice that previously estimated. Healthcare stakeholders should consider diagnostic safety a critical health policy issue.

This article is a response to Oliver et al.’s Commentary ‘The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?’ recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed ‘dark side’, of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary’s limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term ‘co-production’ more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as ‘cobiquity’ – an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of ‘co’ words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term ‘co-production’. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to ‘the problem’ of ‘co-production’ seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia’s failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.

To assess the characteristics and incidence of medical litigation in China and the potential usefulness of the records of such litigation as an indicator of health-care quality. We investigated 13 620 cases of medical malpractice litigation that ended between 2010 and 2015 and were reported to China's Supreme Court. We categorized each case according to location of the court, the year the litigation ended, the medical specialization involved, the severity of the reported injury, the type of allegation raised by the plaintiff - including any alleged shortcomings in the health care received - and the outcome of the litigation. The annual incidence of medical malpractice litigation increased from 75 in 2010 to 6947 in 2014. Most cases related to general surgery (1350 litigations), internal medicine (3500 litigations), obstetrics and gynaecology (1251 litigations) and orthopaedics (1283 litigations). Most of the reported injuries were either minor (1358 injuries) or fatal (4111 deaths). The most frequent allegation was of lack of consent or notification (1356 litigations), followed by misdiagnosis (1172 litigations), delay in treatment (1145 litigations) and alteration or forgery of medical records (975 litigations). Of the 11 014 plaintiffs with known litigation outcomes, 7482 (67.9%) received monetary compensation. Over our study period, the incidence of litigation over potential medical malpractice increased in China. As many of the cases related to alleged inadequacies in the quality of health care, records of medical malpractice litigation in China may be worth exploring as an indicator of health-care quality.

The U.S. medical malpractice liability system has two principal objectives: to compensate patients who are injured through the negligence of healthcare providers and to deter providers from practicing negligently. In practice, however, the system is slow and costly to administer. It both fails to compensate patients who have suffered from bad medical care and compensates those who haven't. According to opinion surveys of physicians, the system creates incentives to undertake cost-ineffective treatments based on fear of legal liability—to practice “defensive medicine.” The failures of the liability system and the high cost of health care in the United States have led to an important debate over tort policy. How well does malpractice law achieve its intended goals? How large of a problem is defensive medicine and can reforms to malpractice law reduce its impact on healthcare spending? The flaws of the existing system have led a number of states to change their laws in a way that would reduce malpractice liability—to adopt “tort reforms.” Evidence from several studies suggests that wisely chosen reforms have the potential to reduce healthcare spending significantly with no adverse impact on patient health outcomes.

This book is specifically designed for new psychiatrists and all other medical professionals who lack the training necessary to confront the complicated legal and ethical issues that arise at the intersection of the mental health and judicial systems.  Written by experts in the field, each chapter begins with a challenging case vignette.