Ulf E Kongsgaard1, Kristine Fischer2, Tor Erlend Pedersen2, Ida Rashida Khan Bukholm3, Torhild Warncke4. 1. Avdeling for anestesiologi Akuttklinikken Oslo universitetssykehus og Det medisinske fakultet Universitet i Oslo. 2. Avdeling for anestesiologi Akuttklinikken Oslo universitetssykehus. 3. Norsk pasientskadeerstatning og Det medisinske fakultet Universitetet i Oslo. 4. Avdeling for nevrologi Nevroklinikken Oslo universitetssykehus.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a steady increase in cases reported to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE). We wished to look into what might characterise those cases of central and peripheral nerve blockade for anaesthesia that led to compensation claims. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Cases with codes for central and peripheral blockade within the field of anaesthesiology were retrieved from the NPE database for the period 2001 – 14. The cases were evaluated on the basis of variables including sex, age, type of anaesthesia, diagnosis, type of injury, site of injury, damages received, and written descriptions of treatment and injury. The expert reports were anonymised and reviewed in detail. RESULTS: A total of 339 patient compensation claims relating to nerve blockade were identified, of which 149 concerned spinal anaesthesia, 142 epidural anaesthesia, 21 combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia and 27 peripheral nerve blockade. The group consisted of 236 women and 103 men, and the average age was 46 years. The 339 cases comprised 0.8 % of all cases reported to the NPE in this period. A total of 107 claims resulted in compensation. Eighty-two million Norwegian kroner were paid out in total. INTERPRETATION: Peripheral and central nerve blockade accounts for only a small proportion of cases handled by the NPE. Only one in three applicants had their claim upheld, but when claims were upheld, the injuries were often severe and led to substantial pay-outs.
BACKGROUND: There has been a steady increase in cases reported to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE). We wished to look into what might characterise those cases of central and peripheral nerve blockade for anaesthesia that led to compensation claims. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Cases with codes for central and peripheral blockade within the field of anaesthesiology were retrieved from the NPE database for the period 2001 – 14. The cases were evaluated on the basis of variables including sex, age, type of anaesthesia, diagnosis, type of injury, site of injury, damages received, and written descriptions of treatment and injury. The expert reports were anonymised and reviewed in detail. RESULTS: A total of 339 patient compensation claims relating to nerve blockade were identified, of which 149 concerned spinal anaesthesia, 142 epidural anaesthesia, 21 combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia and 27 peripheral nerve blockade. The group consisted of 236 women and 103 men, and the average age was 46 years. The 339 cases comprised 0.8 % of all cases reported to the NPE in this period. A total of 107 claims resulted in compensation. Eighty-two million Norwegian kroner were paid out in total. INTERPRETATION: Peripheral and central nerve blockade accounts for only a small proportion of cases handled by the NPE. Only one in three applicants had their claim upheld, but when claims were upheld, the injuries were often severe and led to substantial pay-outs.