Patterns and trends among physicians-in-training named in civil legal cases: a retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association data from 1993 to 2017
There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Background:
Medico-legal data show opportunities to improve safe medical care; little is published
on the experience of physiciansin-training with medical malpractice. The purpose of
this study was to examine closed civil legal cases involving physicians-in-training
over time and provide novel insights on case and physicians characteristics.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective descriptive study of closed civil legal cases at the
Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), a mutual medico-legal defence organization
for more than 105 000 physicians, representing an estimated 95% of physicians in Canada.
Eligible cases involved at least 1 physician-in-training and were closed between 1993
and 2017 (for time trends) or 2008 and 2017 (for descriptive analyses). We analyzed
case rates over time using Poisson regression and the annualized change rate. Descriptive
analyses addressed case duration, medico-legal outcome and patient harm. We explored
physician specialties and practice characteristics in a subset of cases.
Results:
Over a 25-year period (1993–2017), 4921 physicians-in-training were named in 2951
closed civil legal cases, and case rates decreased significantly (β = −0.04, 95% confidence
interval −0.05 to −0.03, where β was the 1-year difference in log case rates). The
annualized change rate was −1.1% per year. Between 2008 and 2017, 1901 (4.1%) of 45
967 physicians-in-training were named in 1107 civil legal cases. Cases with physicians-in-training
generally involved more severe patient harm than cases without physicians-in-training.
In a subgroup with available information (n = 951), surgical specialties were named
most often (n = 531, 55.8%).
Interpretation:
The rate of civil legal cases involving physicians-in-training has diminished over
time, but more recent cases featured severe patient harm and death. Efforts to promote
patient safety may enhance medical care and reduce the frequency and severity of malpractice
issues for physicians-in-training.
Data are lacking on the proportion of physicians who face malpractice claims in a year, the size of those claims, and the cumulative career malpractice risk according to specialty. We analyzed malpractice data from 1991 through 2005 for all physicians who were covered by a large professional liability insurer with a nationwide client base (40,916 physicians and 233,738 physician-years of coverage). For 25 specialties, we reported the proportion of physicians who had malpractice claims in a year, the proportion of claims leading to an indemnity payment (compensation paid to a plaintiff), and the size of indemnity payments. We estimated the cumulative risk of ever being sued among physicians in high- and low-risk specialties. Each year during the study period, 7.4% of all physicians had a malpractice claim, with 1.6% having a claim leading to a payment (i.e., 78% of all claims did not result in payments to claimants). The proportion of physicians facing a claim each year ranged from 19.1% in neurosurgery, 18.9% in thoracic-cardiovascular surgery, and 15.3% in general surgery to 5.2% in family medicine, 3.1% in pediatrics, and 2.6% in psychiatry. The mean indemnity payment was $274,887, and the median was $111,749. Mean payments ranged from $117,832 for dermatology to $520,923 for pediatrics. It was estimated that by the age of 65 years, 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties had faced a malpractice claim, as compared with 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties. There is substantial variation in the likelihood of malpractice suits and the size of indemnity payments across specialties. The cumulative risk of facing a malpractice claim is high in all specialties, although most claims do not lead to payments to plaintiffs. (Funded by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice and the National Institute on Aging.).
The distribution of malpractice claims among physicians is not well understood. If claim-prone physicians account for a substantial share of all claims, the ability to reliably identify them at an early stage could guide efforts to improve care.
To assess medical students' and residents' experiences with defensive medicine, which is any deviation from sound medical practice due to a perceived threat of liability through either assurance or avoidance behaviors. Assurance behaviors include providing additional services of minimal clinical value. Avoidance behaviors include withholding services that are, or avoiding patients who are, perceived as high risk. The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of fourth-year medical students and third-year residents in 2010. Respondents rated how often malpractice liability concerns caused their teams to engage in four types of assurance and two types of avoidance behaviors using a four-point scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often). Respondents also rated how often their attending physicians explicitly recommended that liability concerns be taken into account when making clinical decisions. Overall, 126 of 194 medical students (65%) and 76 of 141 residents (54%) completed the survey. Of the responding medical students, 116 (92%) reported sometimes or often encountering at least one assurance practice, and 43 (34%) reported encountering at least one avoidance practice. Of the responding residents, 73 (96%) reported encountering at least one assurance practice, and 33 (43%) reported encountering at least one avoidance practice. Overall, 50 of 121 medical students (41%) and 36 of 68 residents (53%) reported that their attending physicians sometimes or often explicitly taught them to take liability into account when making clinical decisions. Medical trainees reported frequently encountering defensive medicine practices and often being taught to take malpractice liability into consideration during clinical decision making.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.