Patients seek more and more actively compensation for treatment injuries, accidents, infections, and even because of unsatisfied results. Injuries or mistreatment are quite frequently seen in orthopaedic surgery, because operations are increasing and unsatisfactory results can be easily recognised from radiographic documentation. Compensation can be theoretically sought by three main routes: directly from the orthopaedic surgeon or his insurance company, secondly, from the institution where he is working (or its insurance company) and thirdly, from a statutory system if there is one available. The first two direct compensation mechanisms are based on direct link between the patient and the physician involved. A statutory system can be universal and act more as a no fault compensation system. Statutory patient insurance was introduced in1987 in Finland (Patient Insurance Act). This act covers all medical treatment, both public and private care in Finland including examination, surgical and nonoperative treatment, inpatient ward treatment, physiotherapy, rehabilitation as well as patient transportation. All hospitals and companies dealing with medical care need to be insured. The institutions or companies responsible of the medical work owe the policyholder status. Therefore workers in the medical field need not to make their own insurance agreements nor pay any insurance fees to the companies. The Finnish Patient Insurance Centre handles all claims in Finland, about 7.000 cases yearly, of which about 2.000 will give compensation to the patients. An independent Patient Injury Board stated by the Ministry of Health supervises the Centre. So far, orthopaedics and traumatology has been the leading speciality in producing injuries. The injuries are divided into six subgroups: 1) treatment injury, 2) infection, 3) equipment-related injury, 4) accident related injury, 5) wrong delivery of pharmaceuticals and 6) unreasonable injury (severe complication with permanent disability after accurate treatment). The evaluation of patient injury is concentrated on the case itself. The personnel involved to the treatment will not be accused or sued whenever a patient injury has been recognised. This no-guilt principle has been adopted well in Finland. In the treatment injuries the level of acceptable care is determined by standard of an experienced professional of that speciality he/she represents. That means that an orthopaedic operative or diagnostic procedure will be evaluated compared to the level, which a graduated and experienced orthopaedic surgeon could have normally reached. Infection injuries are considered acceptable and do not lead to compensation when being superficial, or if a deep infection heels within a couple of weeks or months with adequate treatment and without any permanent disability. Traumatic accidents are quite rare as well as breakage of medical equipment and error of delivery of pharmaceuticals in pharmacies. Unreasonable injuries are seen a few yearly. The prerequisite for compensation is that there has to be an objectively recognised harm to the patient due to a diagnostic or treatment procedure. Patient insurance covers the following costs: 1) medical treatment expenses, 2) other necessary expenses caused by the injury, 3) loss of income on maintenance, 4) pain and suffering, 5) permanent functional defect, and 6) permanent cosmetic injuries. In 2004 the total costs of compensation paid was 24.2 million e (public health care 88% and private health care12%). The yearly claim and compensation data is used for comparative analysis between the hospital districts and given also to the medical and surgical societies in order to enhance medical knowledge and skills and prevention of similar injuries in the future. Patients owe still the possibility to sue the hospital or doctors involved. However, these cases will be normally handled by the Patient Insurance Centre and not by the medical personnel individually. In fact, the amount of trials against medical units or personnel has diminished dramatically after adoption of the Patient Insurance Act in Finland.
In Sweden 99 % of all complaints against doctors are handled by a public authority, The Medical Responsibility Board (HSAN). This way it is very rare fore a medical complaint to reach the judicial courts in Sweden. HSAN is a national authority that assesses medical negligence. If health care staff is at fault, the Board can take disciplinary action against them. The Board is made up of nine members. The chairman is a lawyer with judicial experience and the other members have experience from various sectors of the health services. Anyone who is or has been a patient can file a complaint to HSAN. The National Board of Health and Welfare, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice can also file complaints to HSAN. The complaint must contain details of the actual examination, care or treatment referred to, when and where it took place and, if possible, who was at fault and what the fault is considered to be. HSAN must be informed of the subject of complaint within two years of the incident’s occurrence. If this is not the case, disciplinary responsibility will have lapsed. HSAN’s decisions are always public. A case is prepared by getting the opinion of the accused doctor and a copy of the patient records. When a case has been prepared medical experts with links to HSAN review it. HSAN subsequently examines the case and arrives at a decision. The chairman alone examines certain cases following a review by medical experts. Copies of the decision are sent both to the person who filed the complaint and those to the person(s) cited. If the person filing the complaint is not happy with the decision, it may be appealed. The appeal must be lodged within three weeks from the date the decision is made public. The court of appeal is the county administrative court. HSAN does not handle requests for economical compensation. If the plaintiff wants money he/she has to go to court. This happens extremely seldom. HSAN handles about 3000 cases a year and in less that 6–10 % a decision against the accused is made. 70 % of the cases concern doctors and 30 % dentists, nurses and others. The number of orthopaedics cases is about 300 per year and a ruling against the surgeon happens in less than 10 %. The complaints in orthopaedics concern clinical examination, faulty diagnostics (usually that x-rays were not taken), faulty treatment and misconduct. Most of the cases in orthopaedics originate in the emergency department.
Litigation costs are significant and increasing annually within the National Health Service (NHS) in England. The aim of this work was to evaluate the burden of successful litigation relating to hip surgery in England. Secondary measures looked at identifying the commonest causes of successful legal action. A retrospective review was conducted on the National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA) database. All successful claims related to hip surgery over a 10 year period from 2003–2013 were identified. A total of 798 claims were retrieved and analysed. The total cost of successful claims to the NHS was £66.3 million. This compromised £59 million in damages and £7.3 million in NHS defence-related legal costs. The mean damages for settling a claim were £74,026 (range £197-£1.6million). The commonest cause of claim was post-operative pain with average damages paid in relation to this injury being £99,543. Nerve damage and intra-operative fractures were the next commonest cause of claim with average damages settled at £103,465. Legal action in relation to hip surgery is a considerable source of cost to the NHS. The complexity of resolving these cases is reflected in the associated legal costs which represent a significant proportion of payouts. With improved understanding of factors instigating successful legal proceedings, physicians can recognise areas where practice and training need to be improved and steps can be taken to minimise complications leading to claims.
The February 2015 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Achieving global collaboration; A new standard for limb salvage; Inoperable chondrosarcoma and chemotherapy; Soft-tissue sarcoma and adjuvant chemotherapy; Missed diagnoses and
The aim of this paper is to stress that an expert providing medico-legal opinion in matters relating to medical
Introduction: Patient education and informed consent are areas of clinical practice that are taking an ever-increasing proportion of a surgeon’s time and effort. The expectation is that this trend will continue, as medical
Introduction. While THA is associated with positive results and long-term improvement in patient quality of life, outcomes are nonetheless associated with adverse events and post-procedural deficits related to discrepancies in leg length (LLD), offset and cup placement. Post-THA errors in these parameters are associated with gait alteration, low back pain and patient dissatisfaction. Such discrepancies often necessitate revision and increasingly lead to medical
Analysis of orthopaedic
A 5 year review of factors instigating
Patient decision aids have previously demonstrated an improvement in the quality of the informed consent process. This study assessed the effectiveness of detailed written patient information, compared to standard verbal consent, in improving postoperative recall in adult orthopaedic trauma patients. This randomized controlled feasibility trial was conducted at two teaching hospitals within the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) pending orthopaedic trauma surgery between March 2021 and September 2021 were recruited and randomized to detailed or standard methods of informed consent using a random sequence concealed in sealed, opaque envelopes. The detailed group received procedure-specific written information in addition to the standard verbal consent. The primary outcome was total recall, using a seven-point interview-administered recall questionnaire at 72 hours postoperatively. Points were awarded if the participant correctly recalled details of potential complications (maximum three points), implants used (maximum three points), and postoperative instructions (maximum one point). Secondary outcomes included the anxiety subscale of the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS-A) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain collected at 24 hours preoperatively and 72 hours postoperatively. Additionally, the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (PSQ-18) measured satisfaction at 72 hours postoperatively.Aims
Methods
The aim is: to point out, in respect of Italian case law trends, the concept and the boundaries of surgeon
Every surgical act could be considered a criminal offence, were it not for the patient’s consent. The latter formerly used to be considered implicit but it now has to be made explicit, which may include signing an informed consent document. In case of litigation, the surgeon may be required to provide evidence that the patient received full information and was in a position to give informed consent. Every adult individual is supposedly able to understand and to recall technical information on any specific operation; we know how unrealistic this is. The information should be complete, including on complications least likely to occur; it should also be made understandable to the patient. Assuming this would be possible, the surgeon may be requested later on to provide evidence that such information was provided. How to prove this remains an unsolved problem. A stereotyped informed consent document will be no obstacle to a determined lawyer. Unless every patient receives a customised information booklet written with assistance from a lawyer, the surgeon will always have difficulties in providing evidence that the patient was fully informed. Litigation will often end up with patient and surgeon presenting two irreconcilable versions. One of the reasons is poor retention of information by the patient. A number of studies all showed that retention of basic information is poor and falls down to 50 % after one week and 18 % after 6 months; besides, any “unpleasant” information will be selectively forgotten. In countries that do not have a no-fault compensation system, the only way for some patients to obtain compensation for a disability or financial harm following surgery is to sue the surgeon for
Purpose: Wrong sided surgery is a devastating, yet avoidable adverse event. The Committee on Orthopaedic Practice &
Economics (COPE) position paper on wrong sided surgery in Orthopaedics in 1994 had proposed to develop a reproducible method of operating on the correct side and to educate the orthopaedic community about the standardized procedure and accept this as the standard of care. An update to the COA Membership on success of the position paper was published in the COA Bulletin in 2002. Correspondence from the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) had demonstrated that there were some encouraging results. There had been a reduction from approximately 13 cases per year in 1987 to five cases per year in 2000. The most common anatomical site involved the incorrect knee. Now 10 years after its acceptance as the standard of care in Canada for orthopaedic surgeons at the COA Meeting in 1995, have all cases of wrong sided surgery been eliminated?. Methods: A search of the CMPA files of
The number of clinical negligence claims in the UK is constantly increasing. As a specialty, trauma and orthopaedic surgery has one of the highest numbers of negligence claims. A formal request was made to the NHSLA under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain all data related to claims against orthopaedic surgery. It was found that the number of claims, and percentage of successful claims, has been constantly increasing over this period, with compensation paid of over £349 million.* Errors in clinical management accounted for the highest number of closed claims (2933 claims), costing over £119 million.* The level of compensation paid out has a significant financial impact on the NHS. Reforms need to be made in order to tackle the high cost of legal fees generated by these claims, which further drain the limited resources available to the NHS.
The “Universal Protocol” (UP) was launched as a regulatory compliance standard by the Joint Commission on 1st July 1 2004, with the primary intent of reducing the occurrence of wrong-site and wrong-patient surgery. As we’re heading into the tenth year of the UP implementation in the United States, it is time for critical assessment of the protocol’s impact on patient safety related to the incidence of preventable never-events. This article opens the debate on the potential shortcomings and pitfalls of the UP, and provides recommendations on how to circumvent specific inherent vulnerabilities of this widely established patient safety protocol.