Literature DB >> 11342944

Urological medical malpractice.

S E Kahan1, H B Goldman, S Marengo, M I Resnick.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Like all other medical and surgical practitioners, urologists are occasionally confronted with the unpleasant realization that they are being sued for medical malpractice. These suits are generated through any number of acts or failures to act during innumerable circumstances. We reviewed all urological claims presented to 1 representative insurance company and delineated the types of acts, settings, expenses and disposition of these claims. This review was performed to understand better the claims confronting urologists and provide future guidance to urologists in the medical malpractice setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Working with The St. Paul Companies 259 medical malpractice claims against urologists consecutively closed from 1995 to 1999 were reviewed. Claims were defined as urological malpractice when the insured-defendant in a malpractice claim was a urologist. Each claim was reviewed in terms of disposition, patient age, geographic location, office-hospital setting, purported negligent act, procedure if applicable, litigation status and expenses incurred. Data ascertained were then compared to national practice statistics provided by the American Urological Association (AUA) and American Medical Association. In addition, a literature search with the key words urology and malpractice was performed. Related pertinent documents were reviewed and incorporated into this analysis.
RESULTS: We reviewed 259 urological medical malpractice claims closed between 1995 and 1999. During this period The St. Paul Companies insured various numbers of private practice urologists. In the years ending 1995 to 1999, 489, 492, 438, 377 and 426 individual urologists, respectively, were insured with respective premiums paid in the amounts of $6.27, $6.23, $5.80, $5.15 and $3.87 million. Claims were analyzed by AUA section. The greatest incidence of claims occurred in the Southeastern section, followed by the North Central, South Central, Mid-Atlantic, New England, Western and New York sections. According to AUA statistics the greatest number of practicing urologists are in the Southeastern section, followed by the Western, North Central, South Central, Mid-Atlantic, New York, New England and Northeastern sections. When analyzing average expenses, the New England section had the most costly claims, followed by the Mid-Atlantic, North Central, Southeastern, South Central, Western and New York sections with respective mean expenses of $266,887, $145,031, $47,667, $41,843, $38,365, $30,037 and $1,065 per claim, respectively. The greatest percent of claims arose from the categories of inpatient, adult and surgical procedures. Endourological procedures resulted in the greatest incidence of surgical claims. However, claims related to prostatectomy involved the most expensive claims with a mean cost of $185,345. Of the surgical procedures incidents defined as postoperative complications were the most common acts of negligence generating a malpractice claim. The majority of malpractice claims were filed in court but subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
CONCLUSIONS: Medical malpractice persists as an issue confronting urologists. Urologists must strive to maintain open, honest, in-depth communications with their patients when occurrences with potential malpractice overtones arise.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11342944

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  7 in total

1.  Surgeon demographics and medical malpractice in adult reconstruction.

Authors:  Brian J McGrory; B Sonny Bal; Sally York; William Macaulay; David B McConnell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  What is the profile of patients thinking of litigation? Results from the hospitalized and outpatients' profile and expectations study.

Authors:  Z Tsimtsiou; Ps Kirana; K Hatzimouratidis; D Hatzichristou
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 0.471

3.  Management of post-circumcision necrosis of the penis: the medicolegal aspect.

Authors:  A I Tasci; Y O Danacioglu; Y Arikan; Y Colakoglu; B Yapar; Y Buyuk
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  Sexual dysfunction damages: A legal database review.

Authors:  Erin Jesse; Wade Muncey; Daniel Harris; Kimberly Tay; Tyler Kim; Danly Omil-Lima; Ilaha Isali; Aram Loeb; Nannan Thirumavalavan
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.052

5.  Factors predicting success of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL) in ureteric calculi--a single centre experience from the United Kingdom (UK).

Authors:  A Panah; S Patel; A Bourdoumis; S Kachrilas; N Buchholz; J Masood
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Patient-doctor relationship: Changing perspectives and medical litigation.

Authors:  K Ganesh
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009-07

7.  Analysis of closed medical litigation in urology.

Authors:  Su Hwan Shin; So Yoon Kim; Seung Gyeong Jang; Won Lee
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2017-08-16
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.