Nature of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Radiation Oncologists

Publication date: Available online 16 January 2017
Source:International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Author(s): Deborah Marshall, Kathryn Tringale, Michael Connor, Rinaa Punglia, Abram Recht, Jona Hattangadi-Gluth
Purpose/Objective(s)We examined characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving radiation oncologists closed during a 10-year period.Methods and MaterialsMalpractice claims filed against radiation oncologists from 2003 to 2012 collected by a nationwide liability insurance trade association were analyzed. Outcomes included the nature of claims and indemnity payments, including associated presenting diagnoses, procedures, alleged medical errors, and injury severity. We compared the likelihood of a claim resulting in payment in relation to injury severity categories (death as referent) using binomial logistic regression.ResultsThere were 362 closed claims involving radiation oncology, 102 (28%) of which were paid, resulting in $38 million in indemnity payments. The most common alleged errors included: 'improper performance' (38% of closed claims, 18% were paid; 29% [$11 million] of total indemnity); 'errors in diagnosis' (25% of closed claims, 46% were paid; 44% [$17 million] of total indemnity); and, 'no medical misadventure' (14% of closed claims, 8% were paid; less than 1% [$148,000] of total indemnity). Another physician was named in 32% of claims, and consent issues/breach of contract were cited in 18%. Claims for injury resulting in death represented 39% of closed claims and 25% of total indemnity. 'Improper performance' was the primary alleged error associated with injury resulting in death. Compared to claims involving death, major temporary injury (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.29-5.85, P=0.009), significant permanent injury (OR 3.1, 1.48-6.46, P =0.003) and major permanent injury (OR 5.5, 1.89-16.15, P =0.002) had higher likelihood of a claim resulting in indemnity payment.ConclusionsImproper performance was the most common alleged malpractice error. Claims involving significant or major injury were more likely to be paid than those involving death. Insights into the nature of liability claims against radiation oncologists may help direct efforts to improve quality of care and minimize the risk of being sued.

Teaser

This study is the first systematic analysis on the nature of medical malpractice claims against radiation oncologists. We analyzed 10 years of such claims using a nationwide data-base. We describe the nature of malpractice claims and indemnity payments, associated presenting diagnoses, procedures, alleged medical errors, and injury severity. We then discuss the implications of these claims for improving the quality of care and patient safety, and minimizing the risk of being sued.


http://ift.tt/2k0fB53