PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Malpractice”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1977

PSRO and the dissolution of the malpractice suit.

The effect of PSRO on the practice of defensive medicine and the effect of the civil immunity provision on the numbers of malpractice suits may well be substantial. Cost savings in terms of control of overutilization and of the potential for patient injury engendered by that overutilization will ensue. While substantial, those effects will be small compared to the effect of PSRO on the present medical malpractice system. As a social system, malpractice has two positive purposes. It serves as a measure of quality control on outcomes of medical care, and it serves to compensate people for injuries received in medically related situations. How well it serves these purposes is unknown, but what few data exist indicate that it does not significantly enhance the quality of care nor provide an efficient method of compensation. It exists in theory because it is the final check and balance on physician practice--the only existing control on the outcomes of care. Until some system other than malpractice could be conceived which was at least as efficient in outcomes control, malpractice was destined to continue, and no other method of patient compensation could be considered seriously since the compensation and quality control aspects of malpractice were so inextricably bound. With the advent of PSRO, another means of outcomes control came into existence, and as PSRO becomes operational nationwide, that system will prove an efficient and effective system of control over the quality of outcomes of medical care. Within the environment of PSRO, malpractice as a system of outcomes control has little reason to exist, and its worth as a system of patient compensation can be reexamined. It is within the framework of PSRO that other systems of compensation of the injured patient can be considered and developed--systems hopefully more just and more efficient than malpractice. This is the greatest impact PSRO will have on malpractice. It is, of course, a long-term process, and one which will not produce immediate results. In fact, the role of PSRO in effecting a change in patient compensation may never be recognized directly. It is only within the existence of a working system controlling the quality of outcomes of medical care that the injustices of the malpractice system can be righted and alternatives to that system can be considered.

Defensive Medicine↗
PubMed1991

Characteristics of physicians with obstetric malpractice claims experience.

This study compared the demographic and practice characteristics of physicians with and without obstetric malpractice experience. The sample consisted of 387 family physicians and 204 obstetricians in Washington state who were insured for obstetrics by a major malpractice carrier between January 1982 and June 1988. Fifty-three physicians (9%) had an obstetric malpractice claim during the study period. The approximate overall rate of obstetric malpractice claims was low: 0.32 per 1000 deliveries. The higher the total delivery volume (exposure), the greater the chance of having malpractice experience. Although physicians with practices of over 200 deliveries per year were more likely to have had malpractice experience, their risk of malpractice experience per delivery was lower than that of providers doing fewer than 200 deliveries per year. Our work suggests that insurers might consider basing obstetric malpractice premiums on numbers of deliveries rather than specialty.

Female↗
PubMed1992

Medical malpractice: a nonadversarial suggestion.

BACKGROUND: The current legal system for prosecuting medical malpractice claims has bred widespread discontent. It has increased costs, jeopardized the delivery of necessary medical services, and corroded the physician-patient relationship with mistrust and poor morale. METHODS: Analysis of fairness of compensation awards and deterrence of substandard medical services under the current system. RESULTS: Compensation awards are inconsistent and unfairly contingent on irrational, adventitious factors. The current system does not seem to have had a significant effect on detering poor medical practice or on improving medical practice in general. CONCLUSIONS: An alternative to the current litigation-oriented medical malpractice system should be established and centered around a four-member Medical Malpractice Tribunal composed of a general physician, an expert physician in the specialty area of the claim, an attorney, and a lay person. This tribunal would be empowered to investigate malpractice claims by gathering evidence and taking testimony from parties, experts, and witnesses. The tribunal could employ a table of treatment-related injuries in making findings as to physician liability and victim compensation. Such a system, through predictability, would likely increase malpractice prevention while decreasing legal costs and also costs associated with defensive medicine. Deterrence could be served by giving the tribunal power to recommend sanctions against substandard providers to appropriate licensing and disciplinary bodies and by requiring those found guilty of malpractice to contribute subsidies to a compensation fund.

Insurance, Liability↗
PubMed1990

Malpractice in psychotherapy: an overview.

This paper gives a capsule review of the major issues on the subject of malpractice for individual practitioners of psychotherapy. It examines the elements necessary to support a malpractice claim and presents examples of cases in specific areas of liability. Historically, the field of psychotherapeutic malpractice was largely inactive. However, recent court rulings reveal that psychotherapists are no longer immune to malpractice suits. In decreasing order of the likelihood of the plantiffs being successful in their suits are cases involving the misuse of the therapeutic relationship, breach of confidentiality, and cases that involve prevention of harm to third parties and to patients themselves. Malpractice suits based on negligence in providing appropriate treatment are beginning to emerge and will probably increase in frequency as the efficacy of biological treatment is demonstrated. Available solutions to the problems of malpractice are discussed. It is suggested that in addition to the existing external sanctions, there is a need for consultation plus educational programs to enhance our ability to practice within the boundaries that the courts have set for us.

Confidentiality↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Will family physicians really return to obstetrics if malpractice insurance premiums decline?

BACKGROUND: The loss of family physicians as obstetrics providers during the last decade has had a significant impact on access to obstetric services, especially for rural populations. The expense of malpractice premiums has been cited often as a reason for physicians' discontinuation of this service. METHODS: Seventy-six family physicians in northern California who recently discontinued obstetrics were surveyed regarding their decisions related to obstetric practice. Those physicians who indicated that a decrease in malpractice premiums would allow them to consider resuming obstetrics were resurveyed by telephone the following year. This telephone survey occurred following a 25 percent decrease in malpractice premiums for obstetrics by the major malpractice insurance carrier for family physicians practicing obstetrics in the study area. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 76 physicians in the original survey who had recently discontinued obstetrics stated they would consider resuming if conditions changed. Twenty-six (90 percent) of these physicians indicated that malpractice premiums needed to change for them to consider resuming obstetrics. Following the reduction in premiums, none of these physicians reported plans to resume obstetrics or even a likelihood that they would be resuming obstetrics. CONCLUSION: This study found that family physicians who discontinued obstetrics and cited malpractice premiums as a barrier to resuming obstetrics are unlikely to resume when rates decline. This finding suggests that other issues might be equally or more important in this decision.

Adult↗
PubMed1979

Patient Compensation Funds: legislative responses to the medical malpractice crisis.

Fifteen states have created Patient Compensation Funds in response to the increased cost and reduced availability of medical malpractice insurance associated with the so-called "medical malpractice crisis." Patient Compensation Fund statutes limit health care providers' liability to a specified amount, and establish state-administered funds to compensate victorious malpractice plaintiffs for damage awards in excess of that amount. This Note examines the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism, evaluates its effectiveness as a compensation system for malpractice victims, and recommends particular provisions that might enhance its effectiveness. The Note concludes that the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism is an effective means of increasing the availability and of reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and should be adopted by other states experiencing a "medical malpractice crisis."

Humans↗
PubMed1978

Doctors, damages and deterrence. An economic view of medical malpractice.

Damages awarded in a malpractice suit must be viewed not only as compensating the victim but also as deterring health-care providers from negligent behavior. Economic analysis of the malpractice system indicates that awards can send a signal to providers that informs them how much to invest in avoiding mishaps. The malpractice system is beset by difficulties, but not the ones commonly incriminated. The signal to the physician, as determined by the number of claims and size of awards ("expected damages"), appears to be insufficient for ideal deterrence. Moreover, the deterrence signal is attenuated because malpractice premiums are set for groups of physicians, not for individuals according to their record of previous malpractice incidents. Replacing the present tort system with a no-fault insurance scheme would not necessarily be cheaper, and might well abolish the deterrent signal or distort clinical decision making.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1991

Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: By matching the medical records of a random sample of 31,429 patients hospitalized in New York State in 1984 with statewide data on medical-malpractice claims, we identified patients who had filed claims against physicians and hospitals. These results were then compared with our findings, based on a review of the same medical records, regarding the incidence of injuries to patients caused by medical management (adverse events). RESULTS: We identified 47 malpractice claims among 30,195 patients' records located on our initial visits to the hospitals, and 4 claims among 580 additional records located during follow-up visits. The overall rate of claims per discharge (weighted) was 0.13 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.076 to 0.18 percent). Of the 280 patients who had adverse events caused by medical negligence as defined by the study protocol, 8 filed malpractice claims (weighted rate, 1.53 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0 to 3.2 percent). By contrast, our estimate of the statewide ratio of adverse events caused by negligence (27,179) to malpractice claims (3570) is 7.6 to 1. This relative frequency overstates the chances that a negligent adverse event will produce a claim, however, because most of the events for which claims were made in the sample did not meet our definition of adverse events due to negligence. CONCLUSIONS: Medical-malpractice litigation infrequently compensates patients injured by medical negligence and rarely identifies, and holds providers accountable for, substandard care.

Clinical Competence↗