C B-Lynch1, A Coker, J A Dua. 1. Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust (Anglian and Oxford Regional Health Authority), UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 1. To evaluate the common causes of medico-legal dispute in obstetrics and gynaecology. 2. To assess the potential benefit of early alternative dispute resolution. DESIGN: A prospective analysis of over 500 cases submitted from over 100 solicitors between 1984 and 1994 for medical expert opinion on potential medico-legal claims. CASES: Five hundred consecutive cases that met the inclusion criteria: 488 from the United Kingdom and 12 from abroad (Hong Kong, Republic of Ireland). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main principles underlining medico-legal disputes and causes of such claims. RESULTS: Analysis of 500 claims show 46% were misguided allegations, 19% incompetent care, 12% error of judgement, 9% lack of expertise, 7% failure of communication, 6% poor supervision and 1% inadequate staffing. Of the misguided allegations 119/225 cases (59%) were obstetric and 111/275 (40%) cases were gynaecological. The most common cause of obstetric dispute was "cerebral palsy' (22%), while the commonest cause of gynaecological dispute was failed sterilisation (19%). Settled claims were under-reported by solicitors. CONCLUSION: Because of the high percentage (46%) of misguided allegations, an alternative course of dispute resolution must be a realistic way forward. This course of action, combined with improved communication, could result in a major reduction in the costs of potential medical litigation. Early alternative dispute resolution should be considered in an attempt to reduce the escalating quantum of damages and costs. We recommend recruiting independent, experienced and unbiased consultants in active practice within the appropriate specialty to review such cases at the level of hospital complaints management as an in house review procedure, particularly for small and moderate-sized claims, as a means whereby doctors can retain control of medico-legal disputes, in contrast to control by the legal profession.
OBJECTIVE: 1. To evaluate the common causes of medico-legal dispute in obstetrics and gynaecology. 2. To assess the potential benefit of early alternative dispute resolution. DESIGN: A prospective analysis of over 500 cases submitted from over 100 solicitors between 1984 and 1994 for medical expert opinion on potential medico-legal claims. CASES: Five hundred consecutive cases that met the inclusion criteria: 488 from the United Kingdom and 12 from abroad (Hong Kong, Republic of Ireland). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main principles underlining medico-legal disputes and causes of such claims. RESULTS: Analysis of 500 claims show 46% were misguided allegations, 19% incompetent care, 12% error of judgement, 9% lack of expertise, 7% failure of communication, 6% poor supervision and 1% inadequate staffing. Of the misguided allegations 119/225 cases (59%) were obstetric and 111/275 (40%) cases were gynaecological. The most common cause of obstetric dispute was "cerebral palsy' (22%), while the commonest cause of gynaecological dispute was failed sterilisation (19%). Settled claims were under-reported by solicitors. CONCLUSION: Because of the high percentage (46%) of misguided allegations, an alternative course of dispute resolution must be a realistic way forward. This course of action, combined with improved communication, could result in a major reduction in the costs of potential medical litigation. Early alternative dispute resolution should be considered in an attempt to reduce the escalating quantum of damages and costs. We recommend recruiting independent, experienced and unbiased consultants in active practice within the appropriate specialty to review such cases at the level of hospital complaints management as an in house review procedure, particularly for small and moderate-sized claims, as a means whereby doctors can retain control of medico-legal disputes, in contrast to control by the legal profession.