Focus on Liability of Residences for Elderly and Sick People: A Case Series and Medico-Legal Issues.

Residences for elderly and sick people, self-sufficient or dependent, are varied. To date, the liability profiles of these structures are not clearly delineated, and increasingly often, their operating and organization criteria are entrusted to subnational, regional, or local regulations. Among the various deficits, there is the keeping of a complete and detailed documentation/diary of the patient, the lack of which can generate medico-legal problems. In this paper, we present three cases of guests in residences for a dependent person brought to the attention of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University Hospital of Palermo due to criminal proceedings, where the lack of existing documentation in the structure and, in some cases, the behavior of the professionals working there, led the evaluator to deduce the organization's culpability.

COVID-19 Risk Management: a Survey among Italian physicians.

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant global impact on public health. The increasing demand for intensive care and the closure of several health facilities has led to a reduction in the assistance of non-COVID patients. In our study, we investigated what changes health professionals have experienced in their professional activities and how they coped with them. A questionnaire was sent to 146 doctors, focused on three subjects: type of activity carried out during the pandemic; use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and recourse to vaccination; current medical liability profiles related to COVID-19. The questionnaire was completed by 111 doctors. The study showed no significant differences in the questionnaire response as regards the demographic and work variables of the participants (gender, age, area of specialties). Most of doctors assisted potentially positive patients, which also imposed derogations on their safety. Most of the complaints were about the low adequacy of PPE provision and about the compromission of specialist medical care. The interest in safety among participants was revealed by the high compliance to vaccination, with almost complete coverage. The questionnaires showed that most doctors (72,7%) believe that specialist medical care has been impaired during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondly, a high percentage of participants (79.8%) expressed the need for both civil and criminal limitation of liability in connection with work in the management of SARS-Cov-2 patients. In conclusion, this survey tried to contribute to the identification of the main problems presented by healthcare professionals. Their versatility was a crucial element for the management of the pandemic, but also highlighted the need for health institutions to prepare pandemic plans in the future, with adequate and constant updating. Concerns were raised regarding financial deficits and legal protection. Political decisions must be entrusted to enhance medical assistance and to avoid the increasing phenomenon of defensive medicine.

Informed Consent in Mass Vaccination against COVID-19 in Romania: Implications of Bad Management.

Informing patients and obtaining valid informed consent were significant challenges for the COVID-19 immunization program. In Romania, the authorities issued a strategy for activities regarding vaccination against COVID-19, including the informed consent procedure. The lack of legal preparedness was evident when the medical personnel at the vaccination centers were provided with informed consent forms that did not respect the existing legal requirements. In addition, the protocol for persons seeking vaccination stated that the patient was supposed to receive the informed consent form from the receptionist in order to read and sign it. We analyzed the legal implications and the malpractice litigation risk associated with this practice. Due to essential deficiencies and in the absence of an official enactment of new regulations, we conclude that the vaccination consent process did not comply with the legal requirements. Implications include medical personnel's legal liability, loss of malpractice insurance coverage, and public mistrust that may have contributed to a low vaccination rate. Given the potential of future pandemics or other health crises, this may be a valuable lesson for developing better legal strategies.

Trends and Developments in Medical Liability Claims in The Netherlands.

Recent data on number of claims, final judgement of claims and their costs are scarce. This study analyzes 15 years of malpractice claims in the Netherlands. All claims filed, and all claims closed by two insurance companies (which insure approximately 95% of all hospitals in the Netherlands) between 2007-2021 are included. Trends in number of claims, medical specialties involved, final judgements and costs from malpractice claims are analyzed, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on malpractice claims. In total, 20,726 claims were filed and 21,826 claims were closed. Since 2013, the number of claims filed decreased. Of all claims filed, 64% were aimed at surgical specialties and 18% at contemplative specialties. Of all claims closed, 24.49% were accepted, 19.26% were settled and 48.94% got rejected. The financial burden of all claims closed quadrupled between 2007 and 2021; this increase was caused by rare cases with excessively high costs. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in the number of claims filed, and the number of incidents reported. This study provides valuable insights into trends and developments in the number and costs of liability claims, which is the first step towards improving patient safety and preventing incidents and malpractice claims.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Medical Liability: An International Perspective in 18 Countries.

The COVID-19 vaccination has proven to be the most effective prevention measure, reducing deaths and hospitalizations and allowing, in combination with non-pharmacological interventions, the pandemic to be tackled. Although most of the adverse reactions to vaccination present mild symptoms and serious effects are very rare, they can be the cause of legal action against the healthcare workers (HCWs) who administered it. To highlight differences in the medical liability systems, we performed a search for the three most populous countries in each continent on vaccine injury compensation programs, new laws or policies to protect HCWs administering vaccinations introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and policies on mandatory vaccinations, on literature databases and institutional sites. We found that in seven countries the medical liability system is based on Common Law, while in eleven it is mainly based on Civil Law. Considering the application of specific laws to protect HCWs who vaccinate during the pandemic, only the USA and Canada provided immunity from liability. Among the countries we analyzed, fourteen have adopted compensation funds. From an international perspective, our results highlight that in eleven (61.1%) countries medical liability is mainly based on Civil Law, whilst in seven (38.9%) it is based on Common Law.

Medical Liability of the Vaccinating Doctor: Comparing Policies in European Union Countries during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic exhausted healthcare systems around the world, including European Union countries, with healthcare workers at the frontline. Therefore, new health laws and policies have been introduced at the national level in order to offer greater legal protection for health workers. Since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination, it has led to the development of specific laws to define the compulsoriness for particular categories. This review aimed to evaluate the system of medical liability, focusing on the ten countries of the European Union with the highest rate of vaccination coverage against SARS-CoV-2. A country-by-country analysis was conducted on the different medical liability systems of individual professionals, in general, and with specific focus on the vaccinating doctors. Additional search was conducted to investigate which European states have introduced specific policies in this field, to identify the implementation of any new laws alongside the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, and to assess which countries have adopted the European Digital COVID Certificate and funded specific compensation programs for COVID-19 vaccination. Our results highlight an extremely fragmented European scenario; therefore, this work could be a starting point to define a common approach for medical liability and related policies in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sars-CoV-2 Infection After Lung Transplantation: Is There Professional Liability?

Abstract: For the first time in the literature, a case of Sars-Cov-2 infection after lung Transplantation has been described. This case, particularly rare, brought attention on the in-depth screening for Sars-CoV-2 on lung donor. In addition to infectious problems, it is important to focus attention on medico-legal issues related to this case. In fact, from the point of view of professional responsibility, in theory, there could be criteria for identifying professional responsibility. The author analyzes the possible presence of medical liability in this specific case.

LEGAL PROVISIONS TENDENCIES OF MALPRACTICE AND MEDICAL LIABILITY REGARDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

COVID-19 continues to be both a major medical problem and a real ethical and forensic issue, profoundly affecting both patients and health services around the world. This pandemic has produced major changes in the provision of healthcare, especially in patients with chronic conditions. The consequence has been the deviation in some medical situations from the medical guidelines and protocols in force with forensic risks for clinicians. When the criteria of professional competence are met, the civil liability ensures a protection of the health workers. Disputes can arise when there are doubts about how the medical activity was performed in safe conditions for patients, when local care decisions were made or when there are no nationally validated guidelines. In conclusion, clarifying legal concepts on the public health crisis, developing a legislative framework and appropriate means to combat it, are important desideratum on more judicious management of a crisis situation.

Epidemiological emergency and future evolutions of medical malpractice damage

The paper investigates its adequacy in relation to the hypothesis of liability for medical malpractice damage occurred during the health emergency by Covid-19, starting from the current regulatory framework on medical liability, recently reformed by Law no. 24 of 8 March 2017 (so-called Gelli-Bianco bill). In particular, the limits of recourse to a legal "shield" or alternative mechanisms of social solidarity are highlighted, proving rather desirable to adopt a hermeneutical approach that, in solving the specific case through the regulatory instruments already covered by the current legal system, is attentive to the balance between the effective protection of the Covid-19 victims and the general duty of sustainable and bilateral social support, which takes in due consideration the emergency setting where the healthcare staff and facilities had to operate.

Telemedicine: expected challenges in Chile based on the experience in the United States during the pandemic

Telemedicine has had a significant role during the outbreak of COVID-19. The experience in the United States has shown advantages and some challenges that need to be addressed to include telemedicine as an established part of the health system. This article aims to determine the United States' main challenges, associating them with the Chilean reality. In this study, we classify the barriers and difficulties for telemedicine into three areas: accessibility, cyber security, and medical liability. We argue that Chile will have to deal with similar obstacles to include telemedicine as a regular health service for the entire population.

Analysis of Inadequacies in Hospital Care through Medical Liability Litigation.

Over the past two decades, health litigation has followed an exponentially incremental trend. As insurance companies tend to limit their interest because of the high risk of loss, health facilities increasingly need to internalize dispute management. This study was conducted through a retrospective analysis of existing files concerning the civil litigation of the Sant'Andrea Hospital in Rome. All claims from 1 June 2010 to 30 June 2019 were included. Paid claims were further classified according to the areas of health care inappropriateness found. Authors indexed 567 different claims along the study period, with an average number of 59 per year (range 38-77). The total litigation involved 47 different units; more than 40% concerned 5 high-incidence wards or services. Concerning the course of disputes, 91 cases were liquidated before a judicial procedure was instituted, while 177 cases landed in a civil court. Globally, 131 different claims hesitated in compensation, for a total of 16 million 625 thousand euros, 41% of which was related to the internal medicine area. Dealing with the inappropriateness analysis, clinical performance alone involved 76 cases, for a total of 10 million 320 thousand euros, while organization defects involved 20 disputes equivalent to 1 million 788 thousand euros. The aim of this study was to enhance the clinical risk management at our facility through a litigation analysis.

Take-Home Messages from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Strengths and Pitfalls of the Italian National Health Service from a Medico-Legal Point of View.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection a pandemic on 11 March 2020. As of the end of October 2020, there were 50 million cases of infection and over one million deaths recorded worldwide, over 45,000 of which occurred in Italy. In Italy, the demand for intensive care over the course of this pandemic crisis has been exceptionally high, resulting in a severe imbalance between the demand for and availability of the necessary resources. This paper focuses on elements of preventive medicine and medical treatments in emergency and non-emergency situations which, based on the international scientific literature, may prove to be useful to physicians on a behavioral level and avert professional liability problems. In order to achieve this objective, we have performed a search on MEDLINE to find published articles related to the risks associated with the pandemic that contain useful suggestions and strategies for mitigating risks and protecting the safety of the population. The results have been collocated in line with these specific study areas.

Medical Liability in Cancer Care During COVID-19 Pandemic: Heroes or Guilty?

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak rapidly became a public health emergency affecting particularly the frail category as cancer patients. This led oncologists to radical changes in patient management, facing the unprecedent issue whether treatments in oncology could be postponed without compromising their efficacy. Purpose: To discuss legal implications in oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspective: Treatment delay is not always feasible in oncology where the timing often plays a key role and may impact significantly in prognosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the oncologists were found between the anvil and the hammer, on the one hand the need to treat cancer patients aiming to improve clinical benefits, and on the other hand the goal to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection avoiding or delaying immunosuppressive treatments and hospital exposure. Therefore, two rising scenarios with possible implications in both criminal and civil law are emerging. Firstly, oncologists may be "accused" of having delayed or omitted the diagnosis and/or treatments with consequent worsening of patients' outcome. Secondly, oncologists can be blamed for having exposed patients to hospital environment considered at risk for COVID-19 transmission. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical decision making should be well-balanced through a careful examination between clinical performance status, age, comorbidities, aim of the treatment, and the potential risk of COVID-19 infection in order to avoid the risk of suboptimal cancer care with potential legal repercussion. Moreover, all cases should be discussed in the oncology team or in the tumor board in order to share the best strategy to adopt case by case.

Covid-19 and medical liability: A delicate balance.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, many countries around the world are considering whether and how to provide liability protection to front-line healthcare staff. The guiding principle of liability protection for physicians and others is to ensure that, in a serious emergency situation, health professionals can devote themselves exclusively to their work and to patient care, without the fear of future claims for unforeseeable, but above all unavoidable, injury, loss and damage caused by their conduct. Great care is needed to balance the interests and rights of all those involved. Liability protection could have risky consequences with the final result that doctors will not be protected, but institutions such as health facilities will be even if they were in fact responsible for foreseeable and avoidable damage.

To take care of those on the front line against Covid-19: Is it possible to limit medical liability?

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important not to forget, when the emergency is controlled or even over, that those who today are defined in all Countries as "heroes" could in the future be called to answer for alleged damage from professional liability. It is necessary to be prepared, both as health professionals and from a legal and governmental point of view, for a surge of professional liability claims which, with high probability, will begin to emerge in the coming months.

Safety Recommendations and Medical Liability in Ocular Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Unsolved Dilemma.

Ocular surgery is one of the most performed medical procedures in the world. Its limitation or suspension, recursively extended over time, could be associated with a significant increase in the number of blind people worldwide. Indeed, cataract causes more than half of all cases of visual impairment in those countries with limited availability of means for performing eye operations (e.g., Africa or India). In this scenario, the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quickly resulted in the suspension or sharp reduction of various ophthalmic activities considered non-urgent, including lens replacement surgery or some intraocular injections. Despite the imperative need to continuously practice eye operations to avoid the abovementioned problems, there are currently little-shared and vague recommendations among the various countries on safety in operating rooms (for health care workers and patients) and poor legal protection for surgeons (potentially transmitting the COVID-19 infectious agent). Herein, we individuated and discussed some critical points in safety recommendations and medical liability. A paradigm shift for ocular surgery during the COVID-19 era is now mandatory. While telemedicine has been able to solve some problems in clinical ophthalmology, the lack of adequate health and legal protection for surgeons and patients may result in an excessive reduction in the volume of surgical interventions during a pandemic era and the immediately following period, thus determining inability to ensure health care to all patients.