Emergency Physician Practice Changes After Being Named in a Malpractice Claim.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Malpractice fear is a commonly cited cause for defensive medicine, but it is unclear whether being named in a malpractice claim changes physician practice patterns. We study whether there are changes in commonly used measures of emergency physician practice after being named in a malpractice claim. METHODS: We performed a retrospective difference-in-differences study comparing practice patterns of emergency physicians named in a malpractice claim and unnamed matched controls working contemporaneously in the same emergency departments (EDs), using data from a national emergency medicine management group (59 EDs in 11 US states from 2010 to 2015). We studied aggregate measures of care intensity (hospital admission rate and relative value units/visit), studied care speed (relative value units/hour and discharged patients' length of stay), and assessed patient experience (monthly physician Press Ganey percentile rank). RESULTS: A total of 65 emergency physicians named in at least 1 malpractice claim and 140 matched controls met inclusion criteria. After the malpractice claim filing date, there were no significant changes in measures of care intensity or speed. However, named emergency physicians' patient experience scores improved immediately after the malpractice claim filing date and showed sustained improvements by 6.52 Press Ganey percentile ranks (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 12.38), with the increase most prominent among those involved in the 46 failure-to-diagnose claims (10.52; 95% confidence interval 3.72 to 17.32). CONCLUSION: We observed a temporal improvement in patient satisfaction scores for emergency physicians in this sample after their being named in a malpractice claim relative to matched controls. Measures of care intensity and speed did not significantly change.

Challenges Related to the Implementation of an EMS-Administered, Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Score.

INTRODUCTION: There is considerable interest in triaging victims of large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes to comprehensive stroke centers. Timely access to interventional therapy has been linked to improved stroke outcomes. Accurate triage depends upon the use of a validated screening tool in addition to several emergency medical system (EMS)-specific factors. This study examines the integration of a modified Rapid Arterial oCcclusion Evaluation (mRACE) score into an existing stroke treatment protocol. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of EMS and hospital charts of patients transported to a single comprehensive stroke center. Adult patients with an EMS provider impression of "stroke/TIA," "CVA," or "neurological problem" were included for analysis. EMS protocols mandated the use of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Score (CPSS). The novel protocol authorized the use of the mRACE score to identify candidates for triage directly to the comprehensive stroke center. We calculated specificity and sensitivity for various stroke screens (CPSS and a mRACE exam) for the detection of LVO stroke. The score's metrics were evaluated as a surrogate marker for a successful EMS triage protocol. RESULTS: We included 312 prehospital charts in the final analysis. The CPSS score exhibited reliable sensitivity at 85%. Specificity of CPSS for an LVO was calculated at 73%. For an mRACE score of five or greater, the sensitivity was 25%. Specificity for mRACE was calculated at 75%. The positive predictive value of the mRACE score for an LVO was estimated at 12.50%. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of patients triaged to a single comprehensive stroke center, the addition of an LVO-specific screening tool failed to improve accuracy. Reliable triage of LVO strokes in the prehospital setting is a challenging task. In addition to statistical performance of a particular stroke score, a successful EMS protocol should consider system-based factors such as provider education and training. Study limitations can inform future iterations of LVO triage protocols.

Provider and Practice Factors Associated With Emergency Physicians' Being Named in a Malpractice Claim.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine the association between emergency physician characteristics and practice factors with the risk of being named in a malpractice claim. METHODS: We used malpractice claims along with provider, operational, and jurisdictional data from a national emergency medicine group (87 emergency departments [EDs] in 15 states from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014) to assess the relationship between individual physician and practice variables and being named in a malpractice claim. Individual and practice factors included years in practice, emergency medicine board certification, visit admission rate, relative value units generated per hour, total patients treated as attending physician of record, working at multiple facilities, working primarily overnight shifts, patient experience data percentile, and state malpractice environment. We assessed the relationship between emergency physician and practice variables and malpractice claims, using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 9,477,150 ED visits involving 1,029 emergency physicians, there were 98 malpractice claims against 90 physicians (9%). Increasing total number of years in practice (adjusted odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.06) and higher visit volume (adjusted odds ratio 1.09 per 1,000 visits; 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.12) were associated with being named in a malpractice claim. No other factors were associated with malpractice claims. CONCLUSION: In this sample of emergency physicians, 1 in 11 were named in a malpractice claim during 4.5 years. Total number of years in practice and visit volume were the only identified factors associated with being named, suggesting that exposure to higher patient volumes and longer practice experience are the primary contributors to malpractice risk.