Effect of malpractice claims on orthopedic and traumatology physicians in Turkey: A survey study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the malpractice claims experienced by orthopedic and traumatology physicians and to determine their effects on burnout, job satisfaction, and clinical practice. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted on orthopedic and traumatology specialists between May 2019 and February 2020. Data collection was carried out via e-survey at "turk-ortopedi" mail group, which is an electronic communication network of orthopedic and traumatology physicians. For data collection, sociodemographic data forms were used including the general characteristics, working conditions, and the malpractice claim events along with the Maslach Burnout Inventory scale to evaluate burnout and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to investigate job satisfaction. RESULTS: In total, 353 orthopedic and traumatology physicians (348 men, 5 women), including 37 professors, 41 associate professors, and 275 surgeons, completed the questionnaire. In total, 65.4% of the participants (231 physicians and 471 relevant dossiers) stated that they were currently facing a malpractice claim. Emotional burnout and hesitant behavior in medical practices were significantly higher among the physicians who had undergone an investigation/trial with the claim of malpractice (p<0.05), whereas intrinsic job satisfaction was significantly lower (p<0.05). It was determined that orthopedic and traumatology physicians dealing with arthroplasty, vertebral surgery, hand surgery, and foot/ankle surgeries had undergone significantly more trials (p<0.05). In the evaluation of the burnout levels and job satisfaction scores of the physicians according to the age, academic title, seniority, and institution, it was determined that burnout level decreased with age, those between the ages of 25 and 34 years were exhausted the most, and job satisfaction increased with age. It was also found that burnout level decreased and job satisfaction increased as the academic title became higher, and attending physicians were the most exhausted. Moreover, burnout level decreased as seniority increased, the most senior ones were the ones most exhausted, and job satisfaction increased with seniority. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this study has revealed that malpractice claims cause emotional burnout, low intrinsic job satisfaction, and a hesitant behavior in medical practice for the orthopedic and traumatology physicians. The concept of malpractice alone may result in unnecessary analyses/examinations for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Diagnostic Study.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on trauma and emergency general surgery: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) patients who are uninsured have worse outcomes as compared with insured patients. Partially modeled after the 2006 Massachusetts Healthcare Reform (MHR), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 with the goal of expanding health insurance coverage, primarily through state-based Medicaid expansion (ME). We evaluated the impact of ME and MHR on outcomes for trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems. METHODS: This study was approved by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, we defined three populations of interest (trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems) and identified the critical outcomes (mortality, access to care, change in insurance status, reimbursement, funding). We performed a systematic review of the literature. Random effect meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were calculated for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: From 4,593 citations, we found 18 studies addressing all seven predefined outcomes of interest for trauma patients, three studies addressing six of seven outcomes for EGS patients, and three studies addressing three of eight outcomes for trauma systems. On meta-analysis, trauma patients were less likely to be uninsured after ME or MHR (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.66). These coverage expansion policies were not associated with a change in the odds of inpatient mortality for trauma (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.05). Emergency general surgery patients also experienced a significant insurance coverage gains and no change in inpatient mortality. Insurance expansion was often associated with increased access to postacute care at discharge. The evidence for trauma systems was heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Given the evidence quality, we conditionally recommend ME/MHR to improve insurance coverage and access to postacute care for trauma and EGS patients. We have no specific recommendation with respect to the impact of ME/MHR on trauma systems. Additional research into these questions is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review, Economic/Decision, level III.

An Opinion Survey of Orthopaedic and Traumatology Surgeons Working in Outpatient Care (Society, Laws and Patients). / Eine Meinungsumfrage bei niedergelassenen Fachärzten für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (Gesellschaft, Gesetz und Patienten).

BACKGROUND: The German health care system is well accepted, but efficiency, costs and patient satisfaction are sometimes criticised. Opinions and models prevail, and empirical data are rarely presented, although quantitative data are a precondition to assess the acceptance of the health care system. METHOD: To determine the appraisal of the patient-doctor relationship, economic situation and cooperation with clinical institutions, a 37 item was developed where participants indicated their agreement with a statement on a four point Likert scale. This questionnaire was answered by 525 German orthopaedic and/or traumatology surgeons, representing 7.7% of all German specialists working in outpatient care. RESULTS: 75% of all respondents felt challenged by demanding patients and a need for justification; what was less pronounced was the feeling of being exploited as physicians. Restrictions in medical treatment from budgeting expenses were seen by 74%. More than 90% considered that it was impossible to finance their medical practice expenses by conservative medical treatment only. The respondents felt similarly critical about the current cooperation with hospitals - only 19% were not interested in closer cooperation and 96% advocated higher fees for this cooperation. 74% confirmed that hospitals are taking over outpatient tasks, whereas only 35% agreed that more clinical patient care can be provided by outpatient providers, especially due to legal restrictions. DISCUSSION: Practitioning orthopaedic and traumatology surgeons feel exploited by uninformed patients, misallocation of reimbursement funds and legal restrictions, as well as unilateral substitution of outpatient care by hospitals. They do not consider that the current structures are sustainable for long term patient care.

Epidemiology of malpractice claims in the orthopedic and trauma surgery department of a French teaching hospital: A 10-year retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopedic and trauma surgery is the specialty for which claims for compensation are most often filed. Little data exists on the subject in France, especially in a teaching hospital. We conducted a retrospective study aimed at (1) identifying the epidemiological characteristics of patients filing claims against the orthopedic surgery and traumatology department of a teaching hospital in France, (2) analyzing the surgical procedures involved, the type of legal proceedings, and the financial consequences. HYPOTHESIS: The epidemiological profile of proceedings seeking damages in France is consistent with the data from European and American studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, retrospective, single-center study of all claims for damages between 2007 and 2016 involving the orthopedic and trauma surgery department of a teaching hospital was carried out. Patients' epidemiological data, the surgical procedure, type of legal proceeding, and financial consequences were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 51,582 surgical procedures performed, 71 claims (0.0014%) were analyzed (i.e., 1/726 procedures). A significant increase in the number of cases (p=0.040) was found over a 10-year period. Of these, 36/71 (53.7%) were submitted to the French regional conciliation and compensation commission (CRCI), 23/71 (32.8%) were filed with the administrative court, and 12/71 (13.4%) were submitted for an amicable settlement. The most common reason for which patients filed claims was hospital-acquired infections, with 36/71 (50.7%) cases. Twenty-nine complaints (40.8%) resulted in monetary damages being awarded to the patient, with an average award of € 28,301 (€ 2,400-299,508). Damage awards were significantly higher (p<0.05) for cases involving surgery on a lower limb than those involving an upper limb. CONCLUSION: Claims against orthopedic surgeons have been increasing significantly over the last 10 years. Although rare, they represent a significant cost to society. Hospital-acquired infections are the main reason for disputes in our specialization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.

[School re-integration after child brain dislocation : The trauma surgeon's role]. / Schulische Reintegration nach kindlicher Gehirnerschütterung : Die Rolle des Unfallchirurgen.

Concussion injury of the brain is still a frequently underestimated injury, which can be associated with long-lasting consequences. Compared to adults, the recovery phase is often prolonged in childhood. Primary treatment consists of symptom-dependent physical and mental activities. Re-integration into daily life is crucial. In childhood, the primary focus is therefore on returning to school. New symptoms, or an increased presence of symptoms must be detected, to avoid prolonged recovery courses. School restrictions have to be minimized. Corresponding concepts are already implemented in North America. Comparable concepts are not established in Germany. In addition to well-known standard return-to-play protocols for sport re-integration, it is urgently recommended to integrate gradual return-to-learn protocols.Thus, academic adaptations and support must be established as well as symptom-oriented organizational and teaching modules.

Análisis de sentencias judiciales relativas a negligencias médicas emitidas contra traumatólogos entre 1995 y 2011 / Analysis of judicial sentences issued against traumatologists between 1995 and 2011 as regards medical negligence

Introducción y objetivos. La Traumatología y Cirugía Ortopédica es una de las especialidades más reclamadas por su amplitud y complejidad. Nuestro objetivo es determinar las características de las reclamaciones presentadas contra médicos especialistas en Traumatología, considerando todas aquellas variables que puedan tener influencia tanto en el planteamiento de la demanda como en la resolución del proceso. Material y métodos. Se ha realizado un análisis de 303 sentencias judiciales (1995-2011) recogidas en el archivo de sentencias judiciales sanitarias de la Escuela de Medicina Legal de Madrid que se nutre de la base de datos de Westlaw Aranzazi. Resultados. La jurisdicción civil fue la más empleada. El proceso específico más reclamado fueron los trastornos osteoarticulares seguidos de las alteraciones vasculonerviosas y de las infecciones. La lesión reclamada ocurrió con más frecuencia en miembros inferiores sobre todo rodilla. La causa general de reclamación más frecuente fue el error terapéutico quirúrgico seguido del error diagnóstico. En el 14,9% fue el defecto de información. Existió condena en el 49,8% de los casos siendo la indemnización mayoritariamente menor de 50.000 euros. Conclusiones. Concluimos que la Traumatología y Cirugía Ortopédica es una especialidad proclive a las reclamaciones por mala praxis. El número de condenas a traumatólogos es elevado pero las indemnizaciones suelen ser menores de 50.000 euros. El motivo fundamental de las reclamaciones es el error terapéutico quirúrgico siendo pues el acto quirúrgico fundamental y donde se deben extremar las precauciones. Las condenas por deficiente información son elevadas siendo fundamental una adecuada comunicación médico-paciente y rellenar correctamente el consentimiento informado (AU)

Introduction and objectives. Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is one of the specialities with most complaints due to its scope and complexity. The aim of this study is to determine the characteristics of the complaints made against medical specialists in Traumatology, taking into account those variables that might have an influence both on the presenting of the complaint as well as on the resolving of the process. Material and methods. An analysis was performed on 303 legal judgments (1995-2011) collected in the health legal judgements archive of the Madrid School of Medicine, which is linked to the Westlaw Aranzadi data base. Results. Civil jurisdiction was the most used. The specific processes with most complaints were bone-joint disorders followed by vascular-nerve problems and infections. The injury claimed against most was in the lower limb, particularly the knee. The most frequent general cause of complaint was surgical treatment error, followed by diagnostic error. There was lack of information in 14.9%. There was sentencing in 49.8% of the cases, with compensation mainly being less than 50,000 euros. Conclusions. Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is a speciality prone to complaints due to malpractice. The number of sentences against traumatologists is high, but compensations are usually less than 50,000 euros. The main reason for sentencing is surgical treatment error; thus being the basic surgical procedure and where precautions should be maximised. The judgements due to lack of information are high, with adequate doctor-patient communication being essential as well as the correct completion of the informed consent (AU)

[Clinical safety and professional liability claims in Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology]. / Seguridad clínica y reclamaciones por responsabilidad profesional en Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología.

The specialist in orthopaedic and traumatological surgery, like any other doctor, is subject to the current legal provisions while exercising their profession. Mandatory training in the medical-legal aspects of health care is essential. Claims against doctors are a reality, and orthopaedic and traumatological surgery holds first place in terms of frequency of claims according to the data from the General Council of Official Colleges of Doctors of Catalonia. Professionals must be aware of the fundamental aspects of medical professional liability, as well as specific aspects, such as defensive medicine and clinical safety. The understanding of these medical-legal aspects in the routine clinical practice can help to pave the way towards a satisfactory and safe professional career. The aim of this review is to contribute to this training, for the benefit of professionals and patients.

[Analysis of judicial sentences issued against traumatologists between 1995 and 2011 as regards medical negligence]. / Análisis de sentencias judiciales relativas a negligencias médicas emitidas contra traumatólogos entre 1995 y 2011.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is one of the specialities with most complaints due to its scope and complexity. The aim of this study is to determine the characteristics of the complaints made against medical specialists in Traumatology, taking into account those variables that might have an influence both on the presenting of the complaint as well as on the resolving of the process. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analysis was performed on 303 legal judgments (1995-2011) collected in the health legal judgements archive of the Madrid School of Medicine, which is linked to the Westlaw Aranzadi data base. RESULTS: Civil jurisdiction was the most used. The specific processes with most complaints were bone-joint disorders followed by vascular-nerve problems and infections. The injury claimed against most was in the lower limb, particularly the knee. The most frequent general cause of complaint was surgical treatment error, followed by diagnostic error. There was lack of information in 14.9%. There was sentencing in 49.8% of the cases, with compensation mainly being less than 50,000 euros. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery is a speciality prone to complaints due to malpractice. The number of sentences against traumatologists is high, but compensations are usually less than 50,000 euros. The main reason for sentencing is surgical treatment error; thus being the basic surgical procedure and where precautions should be maximised. The judgements due to lack of information are high, with adequate doctor-patient communication being essential as well as the correct completion of the informed consent.

El compromiso por la formación de la SATO / No disponible

No disponible

Do Politics Matter to an Orthopaedic Surgeon? (They Should!).

Orthopaedic trauma care is intimately tied with health policy, and current changes with health care reform may change how trauma care is delivered. This article offers a brief history of modern health care and the implications of new policies on the practice of orthopaedic trauma.

[High-pressure injection injury of the hand. Underestimation of injury severity]. / Hochdruckinjektionsverletzung an der Hand. Unterschätzung der Verletzungsschwere.

A 44-year-old man sustained a high-pressure injection injury of the left index finger with hot hydraulic oil in an occupational accident. On presentation to the occupational physician 4 h later the wound was irrigated and cleaned. At this time X-ray diagnostics, wound revision, administration of antibiotics and immobilization were not performed. The following day the patient presented to a hospital with painful swelling and reddening of the left index finger where an emergency surgical wound revision, administration of antibiotics and immobilization of the finger were performed due to a phlegmon of the flexor tendon. Despite subsequent revision operations, necrosis of the flexor tendon sheath occurred with a skin subcutis defect necessitating a full thickness skin transplantation and ultimately operative fusion of the distal interphalangeal joint of the index finger. After a total period of treatment of 9 months the patient still presented with local soft tissue swelling and paresthesia as well as a limited range of motion of the proximal interphalangeal joint. The patient filed a complaint for wrong treatment of the high-pressure injection injury in terms of an inaccurate examination and lack of administration of antibiotics at the first presentation. The expert opinion of the arbitration board ascertained medical malpractice at the first presentation. An emergency surgical wound revision had already been indicated at the first presentation and the revision procedures would have been less extensive and it was highly probability that surgical fusion of the distal interphalangeal joint could have been avoided. The arbitration furthermore concluded that iatrogenic maltreatment led to a phlegmon of the flexor tendon with the need for subsequent revision operations including surgical fusion of the distal interphalangeal joint which resulted in an affected grip control. The delay in surgical treatment must be considered as the reason for the much worse initial situation that finally led to the functional impairment of the left index finger.

[Conservative treatment of distal radius fracture. Consequences of an uncritical follow-up]. / Konservative Behandlung einer distalen Radiusfraktur : Folgen einer unkritischen Verlaufskontrolle.

A 74-year-old woman sustained a fracture of the distal radius with an additional fracture of the styloid process of the ulna due to a fall. After reduction under local anesthesia immobilization treatment in a forearm cast was initiated. Despite increasing secondary dislocation during radiological x-ray follow-up control, the bone was described as correctly aligned by the treating physician and non-operative treatment was continued. After a total treatment period of 9 months including 7 months of physiotherapy the patient still presented a limited range of motion and local soft tissue swelling of the right wrist. The patient filed a complaint for wrong treatment of the distal radius fracture resulting in severe pain and considerable deformity of the right wrist leading to a significant handicap during activities of daily living. The expert opinion of the arbitration board ascertained a case of medical malpractice in terms of the indications. Due to the initial presence of criteria of radiological instability, an operative treatment had already been indicated at the first presentation. In addition, secondary dislocation during radiological follow-up examination should have led to conversion of treatment in favor of surgery. The arbitration board furthermore concluded that iatrogenic malpractice led to a severe deformity of the right wrist which would result in a loss of grip strength and future arthritic deformation of the wrist. Legal aspects of the case are discussed.