Literature DB >> 28536766

Pediatric radiology malpractice claims - characteristics and comparison to adult radiology claims.

Micheál A Breen1, Kathy Dwyer2, Winnie Yu-Moe2, George A Taylor3.   

Abstract

Medical malpractice is the primary method by which people who believe they have suffered an injury in the course of medical care seek compensation in the United States and Canada. An increasing body of research demonstrates that failure to correctly diagnose is the most common allegation made in malpractice claims against radiologists. Since the 1994 survey by the Society of Chairmen of Radiology in Children's Hospitals (SCORCH), no other published studies have specifically examined the frequency or clinical context of malpractice claims against pediatric radiologists or arising from pediatric imaging interpretation. We hypothesize that the frequency, character and outcome of malpractice claims made against pediatric radiologists differ from those seen in general radiology practice. We searched the Controlled Risk Insurance Co. (CRICO) Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a private repository of approximately 350,000 open and closed medical malpractice claims in the United States, for claims related to pediatric radiology. We further queried these cases for the major allegation, the clinical environment in which the claim arose, the clinical severity of the alleged injury, indemnity paid (if payment was made), primary imaging modality involved (if applicable) and primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) diagnosis underlying the claim. There were a total of 27,056 fully coded claims of medical malpractice in the CBS database in the 5-year period between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2014. Of these, 1,472 cases (5.4%) involved patients younger than 18 years. Radiology was the primary service responsible for 71/1,472 (4.8%) pediatric cases. There were statistically significant differences in average payout for pediatric radiology claims ($314,671) compared to adult radiology claims ($174,033). The allegations were primarily diagnosis-related in 70% of pediatric radiology claims. The most common imaging modality implicated in pediatric radiology claims was radiography. The highest payouts in pediatric radiology pertained to missed congenital and developmental anomalies (average $1,222,932) such as developmental dysplasia of the hip and congenital central nervous system anomalies. More than half of pediatric radiology claims arose in the ambulatory setting. Pediatric radiology is not immune from claims of medical malpractice and these claims result in high monetary payouts, particularly for missed diagnoses of congenital and developmental anomalies. Our data suggest that efforts to reduce diagnostic error in the outpatient radiology setting, in the interpretation of radiographs, and in the improved diagnosis of fractures and congenital and developmental anomalies would be of particular benefit to the pediatric radiology community.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Children; Malpractice; Missed diagnoses; Payouts; Pediatric radiology; Risk management

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28536766     DOI: 10.1007/s00247-017-3873-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Radiol        ISSN: 0301-0449


  11 in total

1.  The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists.

Authors:  A Leslie; A J Jones; P R Goddard
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review.

Authors:  Clement T Loy; Les Irwig
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-10-06       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Diagnostic errors in pediatric radiology.

Authors:  George A Taylor; Stephan D Voss; Patrice R Melvin; Dionne A Graham
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2010-09-09

4.  Radiology Malpractice Claims in the United States From 2008 to 2012: Characteristics and Implications.

Authors:  H Benjamin Harvey; Elena Tomov; Astrid Babayan; Kathy Dwyer; Sam Boland; Pari V Pandharipande; Elkan F Halpern; Tarik K Alkasab; Joshua A Hirsch; Pamela W Schaefer; Giles W Boland; Garry Choy
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 5.  Radiologic errors and malpractice: a blurry distinction.

Authors:  Leonard Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  An introduction to medical malpractice in the United States.

Authors:  B Sonny Bal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States.

Authors:  Jeremy S Whang; Stephen R Baker; Ronak Patel; Lyndon Luk; Alejandro Castro
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Malpractice in pediatric radiology: a survey in the United States and Canada.

Authors:  S A Royal; G A Cloud; W M Atchison
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1994

9.  Impact of clinical history on fracture detection with radiography.

Authors:  K S Berbaum; G Y el-Khoury; E A Franken; M Kathol; W J Montgomery; W Hesson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  The demography of medical malpractice suits against radiologists.

Authors:  Stephen R Baker; Jeremy S Whang; Lyndon Luk; Kim S Clarkin; Alejandro Castro; Ronak Patel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review.

Authors:  Susan C Shelmerdine; Richard D White; Hantao Liu; Owen J Arthurs; Neil J Sebire
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-06-03

2.  Medical disciplinary jurisprudence in alleged malpractice in radiology: 10-year Dutch experience.

Authors:  Robert M Kwee; Thomas C Kwee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  A detailed analysis of pediatric surgical malpractice claims in Germany: what is the probability of a pediatric surgeon to be accused or convicted?

Authors:  Sara Mahler; Emilio Gianicolo; Oliver J Muensterer
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 3.445

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.