Literature DB >> 24081145

Primary care closed claims experience of Massachusetts malpractice insurers.

Gordon D Schiff1, Ann Louise Puopolo, Anne Huben-Kearney, Winnie Yu, Carol Keohane, Peggy McDonough, Bonnie R Ellis, David W Bates, Madeleine Biondolillo.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Despite prior focus on high-impact inpatient cases, there are increasing data and awareness that malpractice in the outpatient setting, particularly in primary care, is a leading contributor to malpractice risk and claims.
OBJECTIVE: To study patterns of primary care malpractice types, causes, and outcomes as part of a Massachusetts ambulatory malpractice risk and safety improvement project. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of pooled closed claims data of 2 malpractice carriers covering most Massachusetts physicians during a 5-year period (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009). Data were harmonized between the 2 insurers using a standardized taxonomy. Primary care practices in Massachusetts. All malpractice claims that involved primary care practices insured by the 2 largest insurers in the state were screened. A total of 551 claims from primary care practices were identified for the analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Numbers and types of claims, including whether claims involved primary care physicians or practices; classification of alleged malpractice (eg, misdiagnosis or medication error); patient diagnosis; breakdown in care process; and claim outcome (dismissed, settled, verdict for plaintiff, or verdict for defendant).
RESULTS: During a 5-year period there were 7224 malpractice claims of which 551 (7.7%) were from primary care practices. Allegations were related to diagnosis in 397 (72.1%), medications in 68 (12.3%), other medical treatment in 41 (7.4%), communication in 15 (2.7%), patient rights in 11 (2.0%), and patient safety or security in 8 (1.5%). Leading diagnoses were cancer (n = 190), heart diseases (n = 43), blood vessel diseases (n = 27), infections (n = 22), and stroke (n = 16). Primary care cases were significantly more likely to be settled (35.2% vs 20.5%) or result in a verdict for the plaintiff (1.6% vs 0.9%) compared with non-general medical malpractice claims (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In Massachusetts, most primary care claims filed are related to alleged misdiagnosis. Compared with malpractice allegations in other settings, primary care ambulatory claims appear to be more difficult to defend, with more cases settled or resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24081145     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.11070

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  26 in total

1.  Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients Presenting to Primary Care with Rectal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sanja Percac-Lima; Lydia E Pace; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Randomized Trial of Reducing Ambulatory Malpractice and Safety Risk: Results of the Massachusetts PROMISES Project.

Authors:  Gordon D Schiff; Harry Reyes Nieva; Paula Griswold; Nicholas Leydon; Judy Ling; Frank Federico; Carol Keohane; Bonnie R Ellis; Cathy Foskett; E John Orav; Catherine Yoon; Don Goldmann; Joel S Weissman; David W Bates; Madeleine Biondolillo; Sara J Singer
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Addressing Ambulatory Safety and Malpractice: The Massachusetts PROMISES Project.

Authors:  Gordon D Schiff; Harry Reyes Nieva; Paula Griswold; Nicholas Leydon; Judy Ling; Madeleine Biondolillo; Sara J Singer
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Does Medical Malpractice Law Improve Health Care Quality?

Authors:  Michael Frakes; Anupam B Jena
Journal:  J Public Econ       Date:  2016-09-11

5.  Four-year impact of an alert notification system on closed-loop communication of critical test results.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Luciano M Prevedello; Katherine P Andriole; Stacy D O'Connor; Christopher Roy; Tejal Gandhi; Anuj K Dalal; Luke Sato; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  The Elusive and Illusive Quest for Diagnostic Safety Metrics.

Authors:  Gordon D Schiff; Elise L Ruan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Unscheduled Radiologic Examination Orders in the Electronic Health Record: A Novel Resource for Targeting Ambulatory Diagnostic Errors in Radiology.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Michael J Healey; Laila R Cochon; Romeo Laroya; Keith D Hentel; Adam B Landman; Sunil Eappen; Giles W Boland; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Comparing Diagnostic Evaluations for Rectal Bleeding and Breast Lumps in Primary Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; Sanja Percac-Lima; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Electronic Trigger-Based Intervention to Reduce Delays in Diagnostic Evaluation for Cancer: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Daniel R Murphy; Louis Wu; Eric J Thomas; Samuel N Forjuoh; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Use of an Expedited Review Tool to Screen for Prior Diagnostic Error in Emergency Department Patients.

Authors:  J Hudspeth; R El-Kareh; G Schiff
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.