Analysis of Medical Malpractice Claims Involving Interventional Radiologists: A Comprehensive Analysis From Two National Legal Databases.

Autor:	Khan A; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut., Garg T; Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland., Khunte M; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut., Bajaj S; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut., Wu X; Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California., Mezrich J; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut., Malhotra A; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: ajay.malhotra@yale.edu.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR [J Am Coll Radiol] 2024 Apr; Vol. 21 (4), pp. 656-662. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Sep 27.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jacr.2023.02.039
Abstrakt:	Purpose: The nature of lawsuits involving interventional radiologists (IRs) is not well understood. The purposes of this article are to provide an overview of the causes of action underlying medical malpractice lawsuits related to IRs and to characterize the associated factors and outcomes. Methods: Two large legal databases were used to search for US legal cases in which there were jury awards and settlements involving IRs in the United States. Cases were screened to include only those cases in which the cause of action involved negligence on the part of IRs. Results: A total of 389 published case summaries were identified, of which 93 were eligible to be included in the analysis. In 46% of the cases (43 of 93), medical malpractice was alleged against an individual IR, whereas in 43% (40 of 93), it was alleged against both an individual IR and a health care institution. Thirty-five percent of IR malpractice cases (33 of 93) involved the performance of a vascular procedure, most commonly embolization procedures (30% [n = 10]), stenting or angioplasty (21% [n = 7]), and diagnostic arteriography and angiography (18% [n = 6]). Twenty-six percent of cases (24 of 93) involved IR performance of a biopsy. Eighteen percent of cases (17 of 93) involved a failure to gain informed consent in addition to an allegation of medical negligence during treatment. Eleven percent of cases (10 of 93) were resolved by settlement, with an average settlement amount of $877,500 (range, $200,000-$2,700,000). Among the 72 cases that went to trial, 74% (53 of 72) resulted in judgments for the defendants, and 26% (19 of 72) resulted in judgements for the plaintiffs, with an average award of $2,012,243 (range, $101,667-$6,400,000). Conclusions: Vascular procedures and biopsies were the most frequent reasons for malpractice lawsuits involving IRs. Failure to gain informed consent in addition to an allegation of medical negligence during treatment was not infrequent. Although the majority of published medical malpractice claims involving IRs resulted in judgments in favor of the defendants, the average amount awarded to plaintiffs was higher compared with previous data reported for all physicians. (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu