Malpractice claims: finding the silver lining.
In this issue of SMJ SMJ Southern Medical Journal
SMJ Strategic Management Journal
SMJ Saber Marionette J (WinAMP skin)
SMJ subject matter jurisdiction
SMJ Summary Judgment (legal term)
SMJ Saudi Medical Journal , Holohan and colleagues present findings from their review of 1,949 paid malpractice malpractice, failure to provide professional services with the skill usually exhibited by responsible and careful members of the profession, resulting in injury, loss, or damage to the party contracting those services. claims in the Veterans Health Administration from 1998 to 2003. The article nicely highlights that diagnostic errors are an important quality problem in the US healthcare system. Diagnostic errors were common, they were very harmful to patients, and frequently occurred in the ambulatory Movable; revocable; subject to change; capable of alteration.
An ambulatory court was the former name of the Court of King's Bench in England. It would convene wherever the king who presided over it could be found, moving its location as the king moved. setting. Of the 723 claims found to have negligent negligent adj., adv. careless in not fulfilling responsibility. (See: negligence) errors, 45% were diagnosis related and 41% of those resulted in death. Diagnosis-related negligent events comprised 49% of all negligent deaths in the data set. Another important finding was that 80% of negligent diagnostic errors occurred in the outpatient outpatient /out·pa·tient/ (-pa-shent) a patient who comes to the hospital, clinic, or dispensary for diagnosis and/or treatment but does not occupy a bed.
This article should be read in context of the Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human "To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System" is a groundbreaking report issued in 2000 by the U.S. Institute of Medicine which resulted in an increased awareness of U.S. medical errors. The push for patient safety that followed its release currently continues. (National Academies Press), published in 2000. This report concluded that 44,000 to 98,000 patients die each year from medical errors in US hospitals and that we must focus on improving systems of healthcare delivery (in contrast to the malpractice system's goal of blaming individual providers for mistakes). The report led to increased research funding Research funding is a term generally covering any funding for scientific research, in the areas of both "hard" science and technology and social science. The term often connotes funding obtained through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are evaluated and from the federal government, new regulations by accrediting organizations, a focus on quality by purchasers of healthcare, and innumerable safety programs in hospitals throughout the country. For example, many hospitals are encouraging providers to report errors and adverse events in order to learn more about the types of errors that occur and why they occur. Malpractice claims files can be considered a type of patient-initiated error reporting system, and one that offers valuable insights for how to improve patient safety.
Before considering the implications of claims file analyses in general, and the Holohan study in particular, readers should be reminded of the limitations of malpractice claims file analyses. First, the errors documented in claims files are probably not representative of all errors. Recall that a patient had to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit to initiate the process that results in a paid claim. Thus, claims can be considered a type of patient initiated reporting system. Patients often sue because there has been a bad outcome or because of conflict with a physician, and not solely because of poor quality of care. So there are probably many types of errors in medicine that are not represented in claims files. Second, there is a time lag of several years between the occurrence of the error, the time the claim was filed, and the time it was paid (which was the final event that made claims eligible for review in this sample). So results of claims file analyses may have limited application to current medical care. Third, the data in the claim file may be incomplete and the facts may be disputed. These and other factors can lead to poor reliability when reviewers are asked to make judgments about negligence. Fourth, reviewers are more likely to find errors in the process of care if they know that there was a bad outcome, as is the case with malpractice claims. This is called hindsight bias "Hindsight" redirects here. For other uses, see Hindsight (disambiguation).
Hindsight bias is the inclination to see events that have occurred as more predictable than they in fact were before they took place. and may mean that studies of claims files result in overcalling errors.
A final limitation is that claims file analyses do not allow us to calculate the incidence rate of events. We do not know the appropriate denominator denominator
the bottom line of a fraction; the base population on which population rates such as birth and death rates are calculated.
denominator to use to calculate a rate. It is possible that when compared to other quality problems, the rates of diagnostic errors are so low that we should invest resources elsewhere first. But whatever measure one chooses, the absolute number of diagnostic errors and deaths reported here is too many and deserves our attention.
A strength of claims files is that they provide a unique view of the quality of care, allowing one to efficiently identify a large number of errors. One would have to review tens of thousands of randomly selected medical records to find the number of diagnostic errors reported in this study. Claims file analysis is probably more efficient in identifying serious errors than other reporting systems.
Claims files should be seen as one of many sources of data about errors and adverse events. For example, from record review studies or direct observations, institutions may know that diagnostic errors are common in certain settings or for certain diagnoses. If so, then the data from the claims file analysis can provide an enriched sample of errors with more detail about the systems factors that lead to diagnostic errors. The medical records, depositions, and other data in claims files allow the identification of system issues that contribute to the occurrence of errors and adverse events (although these are not reported by Holohan and colleagues). With this information, interventions can be designed to rectify rec·ti·fy
1. To set right; correct.
2. To refine or purify, especially by distillation. these system errors and improve patient safety.
Malpractice claims are justifiably jus·ti·fi·a·ble
Having sufficient grounds for justification; possible to justify: justifiable resentment.
jus viewed as undesirable events. But this study should remind researchers and quality improvement leaders of how they can be used to help quality improvement efforts. Claims file analysis is a useful adjunct adjunct (aj´ungkt),
n a drug or other substance that serves a supplemental purpose in therapy.
adjunct to other data sources about errors and adverse events and the high prevalence of diagnostic errors in this dataset should add momentum to efforts to understand their frequency and causes, especially in the outpatient setting.
Eric J. Thomas, MD
From the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX
Reprint reprint An individually bound copy of an article in a journal or science communication requests to Eric J. Thomas, MD, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin MSB MSB - Most Significant Bit 1.122, Houston, TX 77030. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Accepted August 25, 2005.