Literature DB >> 22576994

[Quality of anesthesiological expert opinion in medical claims cases].

T Hachenberg1, J Neu, S Werner, D Wiedemann, W Schaffartzik.   

Abstract

Expert opinions have an important place for expert testimony in medical disputes. The report should contain a summary about facts and causality between the damage and the medical treatment in question as well as describe the current medical standard. The fulfillment of scientific criteria was investigated in 179 anesthesiological expert opinions from 150 arbitration cases. Anesthesiological expert reports (2005-2007) of the Arbitration Board of the North German Medical Associations were analyzed in terms of structure, general form of assessment and scientific substantiation of statements. Patient damage was confirmed in 76%, treatment failure in 29% and negligent malpractice in 17% of the reports. In 78% of the reports the facts were presented correctly and in 64% the question was answered whether the incident would have occurred even during adequate and professional action. Conclusive statements about the causality between the damage and the medical treatment in question were available only in 60% of the reports. The study findings suggest that anesthesia expert reports present a high incidence of non-scientific claims. The development of guidelines for expert witnesses by the medical societies is urgently recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22576994     DOI: 10.1007/s00101-012-2031-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesist        ISSN: 0003-2417            Impact factor:   1.041


  28 in total

Review 1.  [Physician's errors].

Authors:  K D Scheppokat
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2000-03-24       Impact factor: 0.628

Review 2.  Expert witness testimony: the problem and recommendations for oversight and reform.

Authors:  Christopher R McHenry; Walter L Biffl; William C Chapman; David A Spain
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 3.  Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care.

Authors:  Niteesh K Choudhry; Robert H Fletcher; Stephen B Soumerai
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-02-15       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation.

Authors:  David M Studdert; Michelle M Mello; Atul A Gawande; Tejal K Gandhi; Allen Kachalia; Catherine Yoon; Ann Louise Puopolo; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Role of professional organizations in regulating physician expert witness testimony.

Authors:  Aaron S Kesselheim; David M Studdert
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-12-26       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Malpractice risk according to physician specialty.

Authors:  Anupam B Jena; Seth Seabury; Darius Lakdawalla; Amitabh Chandra
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Reliability and cogency of expert witness evidence in modern civil litigation.

Authors:  A Stevens
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  [Injuries in anaesthesia. Results of the Hannover arbitration procedure 2001-2005].

Authors:  W Schaffartzik; J Neu
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.041

9.  Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer.

Authors:  R A Hayward; T P Hofer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-07-25       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  [The frequency of medical malpractice: the results of the German Expert Panels and Arbitration Boards for Medical Liability].

Authors:  Walter Schaffartzik; Johann Neu
Journal:  Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes       Date:  2008
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.