Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada.
World Health Organization Kobe Centre, Kobe, Japan.
Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 6;6(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0569-5.
The clinical specialty of obstetrics is under particular scrutiny with increasing litigation costs and unnecessary tests and procedures done in attempts to prevent litigation. We aimed to identify reports evaluating or comparing the effectiveness of medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies in improving litigation-related outcomes in obstetrics.
We conducted a rapid scoping review with a 6-week timeline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline were searched for publications in English from 2004 until June 2015. The selection criteria for screening were established a priori and pilot-tested. We included reports comparing or evaluating the impact of obstetrics-related medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies on cost containment and litigation settlement across all countries. All levels of screening were done by two reviewers independently, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. In addition, two reviewers independently extracted relevant data using a pre-tested form, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The results were summarized descriptively.
The search resulted in 2729 citations, of which 14 reports met our eligibility criteria. Several initiatives for improving the medical malpractice litigation system were found, including no-fault approaches, patient safety policy initiatives, communication and resolution, caps on compensation and attorney fees, alternative payment system and liabilities, and limitations on litigation.
Only a few litigation policies in obstetrics were evaluated or compared. Included documents showed that initiatives to reduce medical malpractice litigation could be associated with a decrease in adverse and malpractice events. However, due to heterogeneous settings (e.g., economic structure, healthcare system) and variation in the outcomes reported, the advantages and disadvantages of initiatives may vary.
随着诉讼成本的增加以及为了避免诉讼而进行的不必要的检查和操作,妇产科学这一临床专业领域受到了特别关注。我们旨在确定评估或比较医疗责任改革和质量改进策略在改善妇产科诉讼相关结果的报告。
我们开展了一个快速范围界定审查,时间周期为 6 周。从 2004 年到 2015 年 6 月,我们在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、LexisNexis Academic、法律学术网络、Justis、LegalTrac、QuickLaw 和 HeinOnline 上检索了英文出版物。筛选的选择标准是事先确定并进行了试点测试的。我们纳入了比较或评估与妇产科相关的医疗责任改革和质量改进策略对所有国家的成本控制和诉讼解决的影响的报告。所有级别的筛选均由两名评审员独立进行,如果出现分歧则由第三名评审员解决。此外,两名评审员独立使用预先测试的表格提取相关数据,如果出现分歧则由第三名评审员解决。结果是用描述性方法进行总结的。
检索结果产生了 2729 条引文,其中 14 项报告符合我们的入选标准。我们发现了一些改善医疗事故诉讼系统的举措,包括无过错方法、患者安全政策举措、沟通和解决、赔偿和律师费上限、替代支付系统和责任以及诉讼限制。
只有少数妇产科的诉讼政策得到了评估或比较。所纳入的文件表明,减少医疗事故诉讼的举措可能与不良和医疗事故事件的减少有关。然而,由于经济结构、医疗保健系统等方面的异质性以及报告结果的差异,各项举措的优缺点可能会有所不同。