Literature DB >> 22972176

[Medical malpractice in ophthalmology].

K Spaniol1, S Thanos, B Weber, D Friedburg, T Stupp.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of patients taking action for medical malpractice (MM) is a burden for the medical practitioners accused. After the assessment through an arbitration committee, which is free of cost for the patients,a large number of lawsuits can be avoided. Discussion of patient complaints and analyzing cases of MM is an important concern for the medical community in order to reduce errors in treatment and to contribute to patient safety.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The patient applications to the arbitration committee of the medical association of North-Rhine ("Gutachterkommission Nordrhein") for review of MM in the field of ophthalmology in the years 1999-2010 were analyzed statistically.
RESULTS: In the years 1999-2010 a total of 583 cases were related to ophthalmology (3% of all cases) and in 122 cases (21%) MM was recognized by the committee. In 61% of the cases MM was caused by errors in diagnosis, in 24% by errors in processes and in 15% by errors in surgical procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of ophthalmological cases in the total number of MM cases is low. Most errors in diagnosis are caused by the lack of basic diagnostic on examination procedures. Errors in processes are caused by instrumental errors and deficient communication. An important reason for errors in surgical procedures is a deficient management of complications. A standardized workflow of medical examinations and a quality management can help to avoid MM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22972176     DOI: 10.1007/s00347-012-2662-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmologe        ISSN: 0941-293X            Impact factor:   1.059


  13 in total

Review 1.  Risk management lessons from a review of 168 cataract surgery claims.

Authors:  D C Brick
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.048

2.  Causes of cataract surgery malpractice claims in England 1995-2008.

Authors:  Nadeem Ali; Brian C Little
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 3.  Malpractice in ophthalmology: guidelines for preventing pitfalls.

Authors:  M Mozaffarieh; A Wedrich
Journal:  Med Law       Date:  2006-06

4.  Surgical confusions in ophthalmology.

Authors:  John W Simon; Yen Ngo; Samira Khan; David Strogatz
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-11

5.  Systemic adverse events: a comparison between topical and peribulbar anaesthesia in cataract surgery.

Authors:  Tobias Stupp; Ismail Hassouna; Karin Soppart; Solon Thanos; Werner Förster
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.250

Review 6.  [Establishment of a quality management system in a department of ophthalmology].

Authors:  S Braune; T Kohnen
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 0.700

7.  [Learning from the experiences of an arbitration unit for medical liability questions].

Authors:  K D Scheppokat
Journal:  Ther Umsch       Date:  2005-03

8.  [Legal considerations in eye surgery (author's transl)].

Authors:  B Gloor
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 0.700

9.  [Gastroenterology - accusations and errors in treatment: evaluation of the completed expertise process in internal medicine of the expert committee of North Rhineland for the years 2001 to 2005].

Authors:  B Weber; K Becker; G Strohmeyer
Journal:  Z Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  A decade of clinical negligence in ophthalmology.

Authors:  Nadeem Ali
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 2.209

View more
  1 in total

1.  Civil liability of the ophthalmologist in the São Paulo Court of Appeals.

Authors:  Isabel de Fátima Alvim Braga; Kelly de Oliveira Vieira; Thiago Gonçalves Dos Santos Martins
Journal:  Einstein (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2017
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.