Literature DB >> 1990900

A comparison of obstetric and nonobstetric anesthesia malpractice claims.

H S Chadwick1, K Posner, R A Caplan, R J Ward, F W Cheney.   

Abstract

Malpractice claims filed against anesthesiologists for care involving obstetric (OB) anesthesia (n = 190) were taken from the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Closed Claims Database and compared to claims not involving OB cases (n = 1351). The most common complications in the OB claims were (percentage of all OB claims): maternal death (22%), newborn brain damage (20%), and headache (12%). In contrast, the most common complications in the nonobstetric (non-OB) group were (percentage of all non-OB claims): death (39%), nerve damage (16%), and brain damage (13%). The group of OB claims contained a proportionately greater number of minor injuries, such as headache, backache, pain during anesthesia, and emotional injury (32%) compared to the non-OB claims (4%). Complications due to aspiration and convulsions were more common among the OB cases. The standard of care was judged to have been met in 46% of OB and 39% of non-OB claims. This difference is not statistically significant. Claims involving general anesthesia were more frequently associated with severe injuries and resulted in higher payments than did claims involving regional anesthesia. Payments were made in a similar proportion of OB and non-OB claims (53 and 59%, respectively). For cases in which payments were made, the median payment for OB claims was significantly greater ($203,000) than for non-OB claims ($85,000; P less than or equal to 0.05).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1990900     DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199102000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  6 in total

Review 1.  Fetal monitoring and anaesthesia for fetal distress.

Authors:  D H Chestnut
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 5.063

2.  Use of an automated anesthesia information system to determine reference limits for vital signs during cesarean section.

Authors:  F Dexter; D H Penning; D A Lubarsky; E DeLong; I Sanderson; B C Gilbert; E Bell; J G Reves
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section-are current standards achievable? Observational case series.

Authors:  D J Tuffnell; K Wilkinson; N Beresford
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-06-02

4.  Comparison of the 25-gauge Whitacre with the 24-gauge Sprotte spinal needle for elective caesarean section: cost implications.

Authors:  D C Campbell; M J Douglas; T J Pavy; P Merrick; M L Flanagan; G H McMorland
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 5.063

Review 5.  Spinal anaesthesia in obstetrics.

Authors:  P Morgan
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.063

6.  Analysis of expert consultation referrals for anesthesia-related issues (December 2008-July 2010): KSA legislation committee report.

Authors:  Kook Hyun Lee; Tae-Hun An; Jong Ho Choi; Dong Gun Lim; Yeong-Ju Lee; Duk Kyung Kim
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2011-04-26
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.