Literature DB >> 15987961

Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.

Joann G Elmore1, Stephen H Taplin, William E Barlow, Gary R Cutter, Carl J D'Orsi, R Edward Hendrick, Linn A Abraham, Jessica S Fosse, Patricia A Carney.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between radiologists' perception of and experience with medical malpractice and their patient-recall rates in actual community-based clinical settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All study activities were approved by the institutional review boards of the involved institutions, and patient and radiologist informed consent was obtained where necessary. This study was performed in three regions of the United States (Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire). Radiologists who routinely interpret mammograms completed a mailed survey that included questions on demographic data, practice environment, and medical malpractice. Survey responses were linked to interpretive performance for all screening mammography examinations performed between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2001. The odds of recall were modeled by using logistic regression analysis based on generalized estimating equations that adjust for study region.
RESULTS: Of 181 eligible radiologists, 139 (76.8%) returned the survey with full consent. The analysis included 124 radiologists who had interpreted a total of 557 143 screening mammograms. Approximately half (64 of 122 [52.4%]) of the radiologists reported a prior malpractice claim, with 18 (14.8%) reporting mammography-related claims. The majority (n = 51 [81.0%]) of the 63 radiologists who responded to a question regarding the degree of stress caused by a medical malpractice claim described the experience as very or extremely stressful. More than three of every four radiologists (ie, 94 [76.4%] of 123) expressed concern about the impact medical malpractice has on mammography practice, with over half (72 [58.5%] of 123) indicating that their concern moderately to greatly increased the number of their recommendations for breast biopsies. Radiologists' estimates of their future malpractice risk were substantially higher than the actual historical risk. Almost one of every three radiologists (43 of 122 [35.3%]) had considered withdrawing from mammogram interpretation because of malpractice concerns. No significant association was found between recall rates and radiologists' experiences or perceptions of medical malpractice.
CONCLUSION: U.S. radiologists are extremely concerned about medical malpractice and report that this concern affects their recall rates and biopsy recommendations. However, medical malpractice experience and concerns were not associated with recall or false-positive rates. Heightened concern of almost all radiologists may be a key reason that recall rates are higher in the United States than in other countries, but this hypothesis requires further study. Copyright RSNA, 2005

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15987961      PMCID: PMC3143020          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2361040512

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  40 in total

1.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Mammography screening is saving thousands of lives, but will it survive medical malpractice?

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes.

Authors:  Lawrence W Bassett; Barbara S Monsees; Robert A Smith; Lily Wang; Parizad Hooshi; Dione M Farria; James W Sayre; Stephen A Feig; Valerie P Jackson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-05-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  The determinants of physician attitudes and subjective norms toward drug information sources: modification and test of the theory of reasoned action.

Authors:  C A Gaither; R P Bagozzi; F J Ascione; D M Kirking
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Authors:  A Bandura
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Medical malpractice: claims, legal costs, and the practice of defensive medicine.

Authors:  S Zuckerman
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  A clinically effective breast cancer screening program can be cost-effective, too.

Authors:  A P Carter; R S Thompson; R V Bourdeau; J Andenes; H Mustin; H Straley
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Sued and nonsued physicians' self-reported reactions to malpractice litigation.

Authors:  S C Charles; J R Wilbert; K J Franke
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 18.112

9.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Connie Y Nakano; Thomas D Koepsell; Laurel M Desnick; Carl J D'Orsi; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-09-17       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  29 in total

1.  Utilization of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging in two health care systems: assessment with the 2009 ACCF/ASNC/AHA appropriateness use criteria.

Authors:  Katarina H Nelson; Howard J Willens; Robert C Hendel
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Andrea Cook; Stephen A Feig; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

Authors:  Laura E Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Melissa L Anderson; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; R James Brenner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  The legal implications of error in radiology.

Authors:  L Olivetti; A Fileni; F De Stefano; A Cazzulani; G Battaglia; L Pescarini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-06-06       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Malpractice claims related to musculoskeletal imaging. Incidence and anatomical location of lesions.

Authors:  Adriano Fileni; Gaia Fileni; Paoletta Mirk; Giulia Magnavita; Marzia Nicoli; Nicola Magnavita
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Discretionary decision making by primary care physicians and the cost of U.S. Health care.

Authors:  Brenda Sirovich; Patricia M Gallagher; David E Wennberg; Elliott S Fisher
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  Surgical management of ulcerative colitis: a comparison of Canadian and American colorectal surgeons.

Authors:  Devon Richardson; Sandra deMontbrun; Paul M Johnson
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Health and life insurance as an alternative to malpractice tort law.

Authors:  Walton Sumner
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.