• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

高风险和低风险专业与美国医疗事故系统的经历。

High and low-risk specialties experience with the U.S. medical malpractice system.

机构信息

Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Nov 6;13:465. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-465.

DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-465
PMID:24192524
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3842790/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

"High-liability risk specialties" tend to be the focus of medical malpractice system research and debate, but concerns and fears are not limited to this group. The objective of this study was to examine whether "high-liability risk" medical specialties have a different experience with the malpractice system than "low-liability risk" specialties.

METHODS

We reviewed claims data from the Physician Insurers Association of America's Data Sharing Project between January 1985 and December 2008. We used linear regression, controlling for year, to determine how liability risk affected outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

In high-liability risk specialties, 33% of claims result in indemnity payments compared to 28% for low-liability risk specialties (p < 0.001). The average indemnity payment for high-liability risk specialties was $315,314 compared to $267,146 for low-liability risk specialties (p = 0.25). Although only a small percentage of claims go to trial, low-liability risk specialties have significantly more claims that are ultimately dropped, withdrawn or dismissed, while high-liability risk specialties have significantly more claims that result in plaintiff settlement (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Malpractice risk exists for all specialties. Variability in indemnity costs are found in both high- and low-liability risk specialties. Differences in the reasons for which claims are initiated for high- and low-liability risk specialties likely necessitate different risk management solutions.

摘要

背景

“高责任风险专业”往往是医疗事故系统研究和辩论的焦点,但关注和担忧并不仅限于此群体。本研究的目的是检验“高责任风险”医学专业与“低责任风险”专业在医疗事故系统方面的经历是否有所不同。

方法

我们回顾了 1985 年 1 月至 2008 年 12 月期间美国医师保险公司协会数据共享项目中的索赔数据。我们使用线性回归,控制年份,以确定责任风险如何影响相关结果。

结果

在高责任风险专业中,33%的索赔导致赔偿支付,而低责任风险专业则为 28%(p<0.001)。高责任风险专业的平均赔偿支付额为 315314 美元,而低责任风险专业则为 267146 美元(p=0.25)。尽管只有一小部分索赔进入审判程序,但低责任风险专业的索赔最终被撤销、撤回或驳回的比例明显更高,而高责任风险专业的索赔中原告和解的比例明显更高(p<0.001)。

结论

所有专业都存在医疗事故风险。高责任风险和低责任风险专业的赔偿成本都存在差异。高责任风险和低责任风险专业索赔启动的原因存在差异,可能需要不同的风险管理解决方案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7ce/3842790/94d26e4e2a38/1472-6963-13-465-3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7ce/3842790/b014aa7df28a/1472-6963-13-465-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7ce/3842790/bb34cfcc8b3e/1472-6963-13-465-2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7ce/3842790/94d26e4e2a38/1472-6963-13-465-3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7ce/3842790/b014aa7df28a/1472-6963-13-465-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7ce/3842790/bb34cfcc8b3e/1472-6963-13-465-2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b7ce/3842790/94d26e4e2a38/1472-6963-13-465-3.jpg

相似文献

1
High and low-risk specialties experience with the U.S. medical malpractice system.高风险和低风险专业与美国医疗事故系统的经历。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Nov 6;13:465. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-465.
2
An epidemiologic study of closed emergency department malpractice claims in a national database of physician malpractice insurers.一项在医师职业责任保险公司全国数据库中进行的封闭急诊室医疗事故索赔的流行病学研究。
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 May;17(5):553-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00729.x.
3
Use of the Physician Insurers Association of America database as a surveillance tool for diabetes-related malpractice claims in the U.S.利用美国医师保险协会数据库作为美国糖尿病相关医疗事故索赔的监测工具
Diabetes Care. 1998 Jul;21(7):1096-100. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.7.1096.
4
Review of Ophthalmology Medical Professional Liability Claims in the United States from 2006 through 2015.2006 年至 2015 年美国眼科医学专业责任索赔回顾。
Ophthalmology. 2018 May;125(5):631-641. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.11.018. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
5
Medical Malpractice Claims in Radiation Oncology: A Population-Based Study 1985-2012.放射肿瘤学中的医疗事故索赔:一项基于人群的1985 - 2012年研究。
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Oct 1;93(2):241-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.05.040. Epub 2015 Jun 3.
6
Malpractice risk according to physician specialty.根据医师专业划分的医疗事故风险。
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 18;365(7):629-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.
7
Review of Neurosurgery Medical Professional Liability Claims in the United States.美国神经外科学医疗专业责任索赔述评。
Neurosurgery. 2018 Nov 1;83(5):997-1006. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyx565.
8
Nature of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Radiation Oncologists.针对放射肿瘤学家的医疗事故索赔性质。
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 May 1;98(1):21-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.022. Epub 2017 Jan 16.
9
Trends in malpractice claims for obstetric and gynecologic procedures, 2005 through 2014.2005年至2014年妇产科手术医疗事故索赔趋势。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;217(3):340.e1-340.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.037. Epub 2017 May 23.
10
Urological malpractice: analysis of indemnity and claim data from 1985 to 2007.泌尿科医疗事故:1985 年至 2007 年的赔偿和索赔数据分析。
J Urol. 2010 Sep;184(3):1086-90; quiz 1235. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.05.034. Epub 2010 Jul 21.

引用本文的文献

1
Surgical specialists face higher a risk for malpractice compared to their non-surgical colleagues.与非外科同事相比,外科专家面临更高的医疗事故风险。
Sci Rep. 2024 Dec 5;14(1):30310. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-81058-x.
2
Medical Malpractice in Neurosurgery: An Analysis of Claims in the Netherlands.神经外科医疗事故:荷兰索赔案例分析
Neurosurgery. 2025 Mar 1;96(3):673-680. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000003117. Epub 2024 Jul 26.
3
Correlation Between Malpractice Litigation and Legislation Reform in Taiwan Over a 30-Year Period.

本文引用的文献

1
Outcomes of medical malpractice litigation against US physicians.针对美国医生的医疗事故诉讼结果。
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Jun 11;172(11):892-4. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1416.
2
Defense costs of medical malpractice claims.医疗事故索赔的辩护费用。
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 5;366(14):1354-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1114805.
3
Malpractice risk according to physician specialty.根据医师专业划分的医疗事故风险。
台湾30年间医疗纠纷诉讼与立法改革的相关性
Int J Gen Med. 2021 May 17;14:1889-1898. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S312640. eCollection 2021.
4
Medical malpractice in Iran: A systematic review.伊朗的医疗事故:一项系统综述。
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Oct 14;33:110. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.110. eCollection 2019.
5
A National WestlawNext Database Analysis of Malpractice Litigation in Radiation Oncology.对放射肿瘤学医疗事故诉讼的威科先行国家数据库分析。
Fed Pract. 2018 Feb;35(Suppl 1):S44-S52.
6
A 12-year analysis of closed medical malpractice claims of the Taiwan civil court: A retrospective study.台湾民事法庭医疗 malpractice 结案索赔的 12 年分析:一项回顾性研究。 (注:malpractice 常见释义为“玩忽职守;渎职;医疗事故” ,这里结合语境可能是指医疗事故相关索赔,但原词在医学专业语境中有特定含义,可能更准确的说法是“医疗过失索赔” ,不过按照要求未做更改。 )
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar;97(13):e0237. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010237.
7
Linking physician attitudes to their breast cancer screening practices: A survey of US primary care providers and gynecologists.将医师态度与其乳腺癌筛查实践联系起来:对美国初级保健提供者和妇科医生的调查。
Prev Med. 2018 Feb;107:90-102. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Nov 17.
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 18;365(7):629-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.
4
Defenses to malpractice: what every emergency physician should know.医疗事故的抗辩:每位急诊医生都应了解的内容。
J Emerg Med. 2011 Dec;41(6):598-606. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.07.001. Epub 2010 Nov 20.
5
Characteristics of medical professional liability claims in patients treated by family medicine physicians.家庭医学医师治疗患者的医疗专业责任索赔特征。
J Am Board Fam Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;23(6):753-61. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100056.
6
Physicians' fears of malpractice lawsuits are not assuaged by tort reforms.医生对医疗事故诉讼的担忧并未因侵权改革而得到缓解。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Sep;29(9):1585-92. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0135.
7
Physicians' views on defensive medicine: a national survey.医生对防御性医疗的看法:一项全国性调查。
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Jun 28;170(12):1081-3. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.155.
8
Malpractice risk: trauma care versus other surgical and medical specialties.医疗事故风险:创伤护理与其他外科和医学专科
J Trauma. 2008 Mar;64(3):607-12; discussion 612-3. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181653411.
9
Relation of patients' experiences with individual physicians to malpractice risk.患者与个体医生的就医体验与医疗事故风险的关系。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Feb;20(1):5-12. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm065. Epub 2007 Nov 30.
10
Malpractice claims involving pediatricians: epidemiology and etiology.涉及儿科医生的医疗事故索赔:流行病学与病因学
Pediatrics. 2007 Jul;120(1):10-7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3618.