Sepsis: Medical errors in Poland

Rorat, Marta

doi:10.1177/0025802415588989

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies remarked the necessity of identifying sepsis as a fundamental factor to improve survival rates [ 53 , 54 ]. Furthermore, one of the studies highlighted an additional cost item derived by sepsis, that is, the litigation costs related to medico-legal and insurance issues [ 53 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Testing for Sepsis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Sepsis is a serious and expensive healthcare problem, when caused by a multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria mortality and costs increase. A reduction in the time until the start of treatment improves clinical results. The objective is to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations to analyze the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic methods in sepsis and to draw lessons on the methods used to incorporate antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in these studies. Material and Methods: the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to extract the information from the texts. Results: A total of 16 articles were found. A decision model was performed in 14. We found two ways to handle resistance while modelling: the test could identify infections caused by a resistant pathogen or resistance-related inputs, or outcomes were included (the incidence of AMR in sepsis patients, antibiotic use, and infection caused by resistant bacterial pathogens). Conclusion: Using a diagnostic technique to detect sepsis early on is more cost-effective than standard care. Setting a direct relationship between the implementation of a testing strategy and the reduction of AMR cases, we made several assumptions about the efficacy of antibiotics and the length-of-stay of patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Testing for Sepsis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do Intensive Care Units in Poland Need Recommendations for “Good Practice” in Labeling Intravenous Medicines?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Descriptive analysis of medical negligence claims in septicemia patients: a review of Indian National Consumer Court judgments

Sethi,

Shringarpure

2024

MGM J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background, Aims, and Objectives: Patients admitted to intensive care units are at a higher risk of experiencing medical errors and have an increased likelihood of developing septicemia. Due to the high mortality associated with sepsis, doctors are more frequently sued for negligence. Patients alleging medical negligence in India can seek compensation through the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This study aims to analyze NCDRC cases where patients suffering from septicemia filed for negligence. In medical negligence cases filed by patients suffering from Septicemia, the objective is to find out the court’s outcome/verdict, the pattern of monetary compensation involved in the case, the legal standard of accepted care in the management of septicemia, and ways in which doctors can protect themselves from negligence claims, etc. Materials and Methods: This is a record review study in which judgments were obtained from www.scconline.com. The final analysis included cases where patients were diagnosed with sepsis based on medical records or postmortem reports. Qualitative data is presented as percentages, while quantitative data is expressed as a median with an interquartile range. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare qualitative variables. Results: A total of 34 judgments met the inclusion criteria, with the court ruling in favor of doctors in only eight cases. Surgical intervention (11 cases, 32.3%) was the most common cause of sepsis, followed by abdominal infection (14.7%). The outcome of the cases was not influenced by whether the doctor or patient initiated the lawsuit (Fisher exact probability = 0.49). Conclusion: The NCDRC found doctors negligent in most cases where patients with septicemia sued. Eventful surgery was identified as the most common cause of sepsis. The study suggests that doctors can protect themselves by promptly diagnosing post-surgical injuries to intra-abdominal organs and preventing the spread of local infections.

show abstract

Sepsis: Medical errors in Poland

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Diagnostic Testing for Sepsis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Diagnostic Testing for Sepsis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Do Intensive Care Units in Poland Need Recommendations for “Good Practice” in Labeling Intravenous Medicines?

Descriptive analysis of medical negligence claims in septicemia patients: a review of Indian National Consumer Court judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About