Inequality in the last resort: how medical appraisal affects malpractice litigations in China.

BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice litigations affect the practices of patient safety. However, medical malpractice litigations involve highly specialized knowledge. Thus, medical appraisal is usually essential in the ascertainment of responsibility and judicial decision-making. China's judicial system is characterized by a dual-mode of medical appraisal resulting from two parallel appraisal agencies: judicial appraisal institutions and medical associations. This paper examines whether or not and how choices of different medical appraisal agencies affect malpractice lawsuit results in China. METHODS: We collected and sampled a total of 2557 verdicts pertaining to medical disputes from "China Judgements Online" in 2014. We used an ordinary least square regression model and a mediating effect regression model to analyze to what extent and how different choices between two medical appraisal agencies affect malpractice litigations. RESULTS: (1) Almost 81.55% (2082) of litigants resorted to medical malpractice appraisals in China in 2014. Among 2070 cases with appraisal results accepted by the court, 60.10% of the litigants chose judicial appraisal institutions (1244), as opposed to medical associations (826). (2) Among 2557 cases, 2306 (90.18%) claimed compensation and 1919 (83.22%) were awarded compensation by the courts. The proportion of compensation paid in a case is 48% on average. (3) Appraisal agencies matter in the investigation of medical errors, which in turn affects the proportion of compensation paid in a case. (4) Choosing judicial appraisal institutions will raise the proportion of compensation paid by about 10% on average. CONCLUSIONS: Different choices between appraisal institutions affect malpractice litigations in China. As the last resort for remedying medical malpractice, medical appraisals in the judicial system could be a source of inequality in China's medical litigation outcomes.

Relating Medical Errors to Medical Specialties: A Mixed Analysis Based on Litigation Documents and Qualitative Data.

BACKGROUND: We know a great deal about types, causes, and prevention of medical errors, as well as the risks of each medical specialties. Although we know something about medical errors, much remains to be done in this area particularly around effective prevention. However, little is known about whether medical errors are related to medical specialties. Our objective was to categorize and map the distribution of medical errors and analyze their relationships with medical specialties. METHODS: First, public cases of medical disputes were searched on "China Judgment Online" according to the key words including medical errors. Second, we set up a database with 5237 medical litigations. After removing unrelated judgment documents, we used systematic random sampling to extract half of these. Then, we hired two frontline physicians with M.D. to review the litigation documents and independently determine the medical errors and the departments in which they took place. A third physician further reviewed the divergent results. After the descriptive statistical analysis and mind map analysis, semi-structured interviews were further conducted with 63 doctors to reveal the relationships mentioned above. RESULTS: More than 97.8% of medical errors occurred in clinical departments. The insufficient implementation of informed consent obligations is the top medical error in all medical departments [internal medical departments (12.86%, N=36), surgical departments (14.57%, N=106), specialist departments (13.16%, N=86)]. The types of medical errors in diverse medical departments might be associated with therapeutic means used by physicians. Errors related to surgical operations were common in surgical departments, errors related to diagnoses were common in internal medicine departments, and errors related to therapy were common in specialist departments. A lack of clinical experience and undesirable work system design have contributed to the occurrence of medical errors. Inadequate human resources and unreasonable shift systems have increased the workload of staff members and this has in turn increased the incidence rate of medical errors. CONCLUSION: Medical departments are facing medical errors both in humanity and technology. Medical institutions should be alert to the harm caused by medical humanity (mainly including insufficient communication between physicians and patients, insufficient implementation of infringement of informed consent, infringement of patient's privacy and overtreatment). Improving the clinical skill and vigilance of medical staff is a top priority. Medical institutions should also improve undesirable system designs.