Learning from an analysis of closed malpractice litigation involving myocardial infarction
| Autor: | Chien-Hung Wu, Chi-Yuan Hwang, Kuan-Han Wu, Shih-Yu Cheng, Yung-Lin Yen |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Population Cardiology Myocardial Infarction Taiwan Disease 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology Chest pain Pathology and Forensic Medicine 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Malpractice Internal Medicine medicine Humans Myocardial infarction Diagnostic Errors education Imprisonment Retrospective Studies Adjudication education.field_of_study Medical Errors business.industry 030208 emergency & critical care medicine General Medicine medicine.disease Lawsuit Compensation and Redress Emergency medicine Emergency Medicine Medical emergency medicine.symptom business Law |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 48:41-45 |
| ISSN: | 1752-928X |
| Popis: | Objective To examine the epidemiologic data, identify the pattern of dispute, and determine clinical litigious errors by analyzing closed malpractice claims involving myocardial infarction (MI) in Taiwanese courts. Methods A retrospective descriptive study was performed to analyze the verdicts pertaining to MI from the population-based database of the Taiwan judicial system between 2002 and 2013. The results of adjudication, involved specialists, primary dispute leading to lawsuits, and litigious errors were recorded. Results A total of 36 closed malpractice claims involving MI were included. The mean interval between the incident and litigation closure was 65.5 ± 28.3 months. Nearly 20% of the cases were judged against clinicians and the mean payment was $100639 ± 49617, while the mean imprisonment sentence was 4.3 ± 1.8 months. Cardiologists and emergency physicians were involved in 56.3% of cases, but won 92.6% of lawsuits, while other specialists lost nearly 25% of lawsuits. The most common dispute was misdiagnosis (38.9%), but this dispute had the lowest percentage of loss (7.1%). Disputes regarding delayed diagnosis were judged against the defendants in 50% of claims. Clinicians lost the lawsuit in the following conditions: 1) misdiagnosis of MI in patients with typical chest pain and known coronary artery risk factors; 2) failure to perform thoughtful evaluation and series investigations in patients suspicious of ischemic heart disease; 3) failure to perform indicated treatment to avoid disease progression. Conclusions Medical practitioners should keep a high index of MI suspicion, especially if the diagnosis and treatment of MI are beyond their daily practice. Prudent patient reevaluation, serial ECG and cardiac enzyme testing, and early consultation are suggested to reduce malpractice liability. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect