RESUMO
Background The internet has had an enormous influence on the field of medicine. In this regard, Statista, a market and consumer data company, estimated in 2019 that more than half the world's population (>four billion people) were active internet users. Accessing the World Wide Web has become the second nature for most. In the medical field, many patients look to the internet for information regarding certain procedures. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to assess the readability level of more than 492 online sources with information on a wide array of interventional pain procedures. Objective The aim is to determine the readability of online patient educational materials for interventional pain procedures. Study design This is a retrospective review. Methods We downloaded and reformatted to plain text 492 internet-based patient educational materials for 17 different interventional pain procedures. Plain text was processed using Readability Studio (Oleander Software Ltd., Vandalia, Ohio, USA), which employs 10 quantitative readability scales that are widely used and accepted in the medical literature. Results The software determined the average reading level (or grade level) of the 492 online sources we examined to be 12.1, with a range of 10.9 to 13. Limitations Google is not the only online search engine patients utilize for information, and the top links for each search could change over time. Also, some patients prefer videos rather than text to learn about their disease and treatment options. Finally, depending on their provider, the links that patients are directed to may be significantly more or less readable. Conclusions The average American adult reads at the eighth grade level. The National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association have recommended education materials be made available at the third to seventh grade level. Our analysis shows patient educational materials found online for interventional pain procedures to be overly technical, with an average reading level (or grade level) of 12.1.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. OBJECTIVES: To examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. METHODS: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Data collected for each case included year, state, patient age, patient gender, defendant specialty, legal outcome, award amount, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors in plaintiff's decision to file. After elimination of duplicates and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria to our initial search yielding over 1,500 cases, a total of 82 cases were included in this study. RESULTS: A total of 57.3% of cases resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, whereas 41.5% favored the plaintiff. When comparing cases that were performed in the operating room to cases performed outside the operating room, we found the jury verdicts to favor the plaintiff 83.3% of the time for operating room procedures (P = 0.003). In other words, interventional pain practitioners were more likely to be found at fault for complications from procedures performed in the operating room. To eliminate confounders, a logistical regression was performed and confirmed operating room procedures were an independent predictor of a verdict awarded to the plaintiff (P = 0.008). The median amount awarded to the plaintiff for all cases was $333,000, and the single highest award amount was $36,636,288. The median payout for operating room procedures was $450,000 (P = 0.010), which was significantly different from the median payout for nonoperating room procedures. Procedure categorization demonstrated a statistically significant difference in jury verdicts (P = 0.01411) and procedural error was the leading reason for pursuing litigation, followed by lack of informed consent and unnecessary procedure performed. LIMITATIONS: There is more than one database that captures medicolegal claims brought against practitioners. Westlaw, which has been previously utilized by other studies, is only one of them and the extent to which overlap exists in unclear. For each, data input are not necessarily consistent and data capture are not complete. As a result, there could exist a skew toward more severe complications and the details of individual cases likely vary. During data extraction, we found that all details of the procedure were not always included. For example, not all cases specified the type of injectate utilized for epidural injection (i.e., local anesthetic, steroid, mixture, and others) or route of injection (i.e., transforaminal vs. interlaminar). Moreover, as previously mentioned, cases that are settled out of court or finalized prior to trial are not necessarily reported by the Westlaw database, and therefore were not always included in our data search. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, interventional pain medicine physicians were favored by jury verdicts for malpractice claims. However, when filtering by procedure or setting, jury verdicts favored the plaintiff in some cases. KEY WORDS: Interventional pain, medical, malpractice, anesthesiology.
