Vincent Charles, Davy Caroline, Esmail Aneez, Neale Graham, Elstein Max, Cozens Jenny Firth, Walshe Kieran
Smith & Nephew Foundation, Department of Surgical Oncology & Technology, Clinical Safety Research Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Dec;12(6):665-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00634.x.
Claims for malpractice and medical negligence are a potentially important source of information on the causes of harm to patients and have provided valuable lessons in the past. However today, with many additional sources of information and methods of analysis, the role of claims analysis needs to be reappraised. We consider the role of claims analysis in relation to other methods of studying adverse outcomes, review previous studies of claims and summarize the findings of four recent British specialty claims reviews. Claims analysis has a number of inherent limitations. We suggest that there is now no case for ad hoc claims reviews which rely on data that have been assembled for legal purposes only. Claims review is still potentially useful for rare events or in cases where other sources of data are not available. However, future claims reviews need to meet basic criteria before being undertaken; these include prospective identification of the relevant questions and variables, adequacy and completeness of the data set, availability of expert reviewers and clear protocols for review.
医疗事故和医疗过失索赔是了解患者伤害原因的一个潜在重要信息来源,过去曾提供过宝贵的经验教训。然而如今,有了许多额外的信息来源和分析方法,索赔分析的作用需要重新评估。我们考虑索赔分析相对于其他研究不良后果方法的作用,回顾以往的索赔研究,并总结最近四项英国专科索赔审查的结果。索赔分析有一些固有的局限性。我们认为,现在没有理由进行仅依赖为法律目的而收集的数据的临时索赔审查。索赔审查对于罕见事件或在没有其他数据来源的情况下仍可能有用。然而,未来的索赔审查在进行之前需要满足基本标准;这些标准包括对相关问题和变量的前瞻性识别、数据集的充分性和完整性、专家评审人员的可用性以及明确的审查方案。