Suppr超能文献

对500起医疗法律索赔案件进行临床分析,评估其原因并评估替代性纠纷解决方式的潜在益处。

A clinical analysis of 500 medico-legal claims evaluating the causes and assessing the potential benefit of alternative dispute resolution.

作者信息

B-Lynch C, Coker A, Dua J A

机构信息

Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust (Anglian and Oxford Regional Health Authority), UK.

出版信息

Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Dec;103(12):1236-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09635.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

  1. To evaluate the common causes of medico-legal dispute in obstetrics and gynaecology. 2. To assess the potential benefit of early alternative dispute resolution.

DESIGN

A prospective analysis of over 500 cases submitted from over 100 solicitors between 1984 and 1994 for medical expert opinion on potential medico-legal claims.

CASES

Five hundred consecutive cases that met the inclusion criteria: 488 from the United Kingdom and 12 from abroad (Hong Kong, Republic of Ireland).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main principles underlining medico-legal disputes and causes of such claims.

RESULTS

Analysis of 500 claims show 46% were misguided allegations, 19% incompetent care, 12% error of judgement, 9% lack of expertise, 7% failure of communication, 6% poor supervision and 1% inadequate staffing. Of the misguided allegations 119/225 cases (59%) were obstetric and 111/275 (40%) cases were gynaecological. The most common cause of obstetric dispute was "cerebral palsy' (22%), while the commonest cause of gynaecological dispute was failed sterilisation (19%). Settled claims were under-reported by solicitors.

CONCLUSION

Because of the high percentage (46%) of misguided allegations, an alternative course of dispute resolution must be a realistic way forward. This course of action, combined with improved communication, could result in a major reduction in the costs of potential medical litigation. Early alternative dispute resolution should be considered in an attempt to reduce the escalating quantum of damages and costs. We recommend recruiting independent, experienced and unbiased consultants in active practice within the appropriate specialty to review such cases at the level of hospital complaints management as an in house review procedure, particularly for small and moderate-sized claims, as a means whereby doctors can retain control of medico-legal disputes, in contrast to control by the legal profession.

摘要

目的

  1. 评估妇产科医疗纠纷的常见原因。2. 评估早期替代性纠纷解决方式的潜在益处。

设计

对1984年至1994年间100多名律师提交的500多起案件进行前瞻性分析,以获取关于潜在医疗法律索赔的医学专家意见。

病例

500例连续符合纳入标准的病例:488例来自英国,12例来自国外(中国香港、爱尔兰共和国)。

主要观察指标

构成医疗法律纠纷的主要原则及此类索赔的原因。

结果

对500起索赔案的分析显示,46%为误导性指控,19%为护理不当,12%为判断失误,9%为专业知识不足,7%为沟通失败,6%为监督不力,1%为人员配备不足。在误导性指控中,119/225例(59%)为产科病例,111/275例(40%)为妇科病例。产科纠纷最常见的原因是“脑瘫”(22%),而妇科纠纷最常见的原因是绝育失败(19%)。已解决的索赔案被律师少报。

结论

由于误导性指控的比例很高(46%),替代性纠纷解决方式必定是一条切实可行的途径。这一行动方案,再加上改善沟通,可能会大幅降低潜在医疗诉讼的成本。应考虑早期替代性纠纷解决方式,以试图减少不断攀升的损害赔偿和成本金额。我们建议聘请在适当专业领域积极执业的独立、经验丰富且公正无偏的顾问,在医院投诉管理层面审查此类案件,作为内部审查程序,特别是针对中小型索赔案,以此作为医生能够掌控医疗法律纠纷的一种方式,而非由法律行业掌控。

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