Formal Patient Complaints and Malpractice Events Involving Orthopedic Spine Surgeons

Rae, Matthew; Rocha, Daniela Barreto; Hayes, Daniel S.; Haak, Michael; Maniar, Hemil; Grandizio, Louis C.

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004272

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[12] Other reasons for spinal malpractice suits Other reasons were identified for patients filing spinal malpractice actions. [Table 1] [6,16] 1]. [6] Analyzing 214 complaints from 202 patients for spine-related malpractice events (i.e.…”

Section: Lack Of Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6] Analyzing 214 complaints from 202 patients for spine-related malpractice events (i.e. involving 6 orthopedic spine surgeons over a 10 year period), Rae et al (2022) further identified a 35% incidence of the "lack of access to the surgeons postoperatively", and another 32% cited failures in postoperative care/treatment (i.e. including 34 dissatisfied with postoperative results) [Table 1].…”

Section: Lack Of Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other reasons were identified for patients filing spinal malpractice actions. [ Table 1 ][ 6 , 16 ] When Dronkers et al . (2020) evaluated 57 complaints against neurosurgey attendings/residents (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why are spine surgeons sued, and with what outcomes?

Epstein¹,

Agulnick

2023

Surgical Neurology International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Why are spine surgeons sued, how successfully, and for how much? Typical bases for spinal medicolegal suits have included; the failure to timely diagnose and treat, surgical negligence, (i.e. especially resulting in significant neurological deficits), and the lack of informed consent. We reviewed 17 medicolegal spinal articles looking for additional reasons for suits, along with identifying other factors contributing to defense verdicts, plaintiffs’ verdicts, or settlements. Methods: After confirming the same three most likely causes of medicolegal suits, other factors leading to such suits included; the lack of patient access to surgeons postoperatively, poor postoperative management (i.e. contributing to new postoperative neurological deficits), failure to communicate between specialists/surgeons perioperatively, and failure to brace. Results: Critical factors leading to more plaintiffs’ verdicts and settlements along with higher payouts for both included new severe and/or catastrophic postoperative neurological deficits. Conversely, defense verdicts were more likely for those with less severe new and/or residual injuries. The total number of plaintiffs’ verdicts ranged from 17-35.2%, settlements, from 8.3-37%, and defense verdicts from 27.7-75%. Conclusion: The three most frequent bases for spinal medicolegal suits continue to include; failure to timely diagnose/treat, surgical negligence, and lack of informed consent. Here, we identified the following additional causes of such suits; the lack of patient access to surgeons perioperatively, poor postoperative management, lack of specialist/surgeon communication, and failure to brace. Further, more plaintiffs’ verdicts or settlements and greater respective payouts were observed for those with new and/or more severe/catastrophic deficits, while more defense verdicts were typically rendered for patients with lesser new neurological injuries.

show abstract

Section: Lack Of Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lack Of Informed Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why are spine surgeons sued, and with what outcomes?

Epstein¹,

Agulnick

2023

Surgical Neurology International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Patient characteristics of, and remedial interventions for, complaints and medico-legal claims against doctors: a rapid review of the literature

Schultz,

Zhou,

Gray

et al. 2024

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is uncertain if patient’s characteristics are associated with complaints and claims against doctors. Additionally, evidence for the effectiveness of remedial interventions on rates of complaints and claims against doctors has not been synthesised. Methods We conducted a rapid review of recent literature to answer: Question 1 “What are the common characteristics and circumstances of patients who are most likely to complain or bring a claim about the care they have received from a doctor?” and Question 2 “What initiatives or interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing complaints and claims about the care patients have received from a doctor?”. We used a systematic search (most recently in July 2023) of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature. Studies were screened against inclusion criteria and critically appraised in duplicate using standard tools. Results were summarised using narrative synthesis. Results From 8079 search results, we reviewed the full text of 250 studies. We included 25 studies: seven for Question 1 (6 comparative studies with controls and one systematic review) and 18 studies for Question 2 (14 uncontrolled pre-post studies, 2 comparative studies with controls and 2 systematic reviews). Most studies were set in hospitals across a mix of medical specialties. Other than for patients with mental health conditions (two studies), no other patient characteristics demonstrated either a strong or consistent effect on the rate of complaints or claims against their treating doctors. Risk management programs (6 studies), and communication and resolution programs (5 studies) were the most studied of 6 intervention types. Evidence for reducing complaints and medico-legal claims, costs or premiums and more timely management was apparent for both types of programs. Only 1 to 3 studies were included for peer programs, medical remediation, shared decision-making, simulation training and continuing professional development, with few generalisable results. Conclusion Few patient characteristics can be reliably related to the likelihood of medico-legal complaints or claims. There is some evidence that interventions can reduce the number and costs of claims, the number of complaints, and the timeliness of claims. However, across both questions, the strength of the evidence is very weak and is based on only a few studies or study designs that are highly prone to bias.

show abstract

Spine

2022

Bone & Joint 360

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal Patient Complaints and Malpractice Events Involving Orthopedic Spine Surgeons

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Why are spine surgeons sued, and with what outcomes?

Why are spine surgeons sued, and with what outcomes?

Patient characteristics of, and remedial interventions for, complaints and medico-legal claims against doctors: a rapid review of the literature

Spine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About