Even A Worm Will Turn: Appendicitis Malpractice Litigation Since 2020

Rahma Menshawey, Esraa Menshawey
{"title":"Even A Worm Will Turn: Appendicitis Malpractice Litigation Since 2020","authors":"Rahma Menshawey, Esraa Menshawey","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.11.24310287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Appendicitis is the inflammation of the vermiform appendix, and it is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in the world. Its diagnosis, however, has many pitfalls including lack of a pathognomonic sign or symptoms, and the low predictive value of laboratory testing. Appendicitis is a leading cause of malpractice concerns. Methods: Using Google Case Law, we used the search terms appendicitis, and malpractice to identify appendicitis litigation cases. We included cases published since 2020. We included any case where a confirmed diagnosis of appendicitis was made. We included cases filed for malpractice due to complications of appendicitis and its treatment. Outcomes of interest included: the state the case was published, the defendants, the date of when the patient first complained of abdominal pain to when they had had an appendectomy/treatment, diagnostics and consultations, medical and legal issues, and final verdict/opinion/decisions on the cases.\nResults: A total of 44 cases were identified, which were screened for inclusion. A total of 14 cases met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Most cases did not present in an atypical way, the majority of patients presented with clear statements of abdominal pain of varying severity. The majority of the defendants were MDs and hospitals. The average time from symptom to diagnosis was 2.4 +/- 2.1 days, while the longest time for diagnosis was 7 days. The leading medico-legal issues were failure to diagnose and delayed diagnosis, while among the cases, 35.7% had outcomes in favor of the plaintiff. Conclusions: Appendicitis remains an area of high risk of litigation. Malpractice suits are often due to failure to diagnose and failure to treat, but there maybe proactive measures to address the modern pitfalls to promote a decreased litigation risk and patient safety","PeriodicalId":501051,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.11.24310287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Appendicitis is the inflammation of the vermiform appendix, and it is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in the world. Its diagnosis, however, has many pitfalls including lack of a pathognomonic sign or symptoms, and the low predictive value of laboratory testing. Appendicitis is a leading cause of malpractice concerns. Methods: Using Google Case Law, we used the search terms appendicitis, and malpractice to identify appendicitis litigation cases. We included cases published since 2020. We included any case where a confirmed diagnosis of appendicitis was made. We included cases filed for malpractice due to complications of appendicitis and its treatment. Outcomes of interest included: the state the case was published, the defendants, the date of when the patient first complained of abdominal pain to when they had had an appendectomy/treatment, diagnostics and consultations, medical and legal issues, and final verdict/opinion/decisions on the cases. Results: A total of 44 cases were identified, which were screened for inclusion. A total of 14 cases met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Most cases did not present in an atypical way, the majority of patients presented with clear statements of abdominal pain of varying severity. The majority of the defendants were MDs and hospitals. The average time from symptom to diagnosis was 2.4 +/- 2.1 days, while the longest time for diagnosis was 7 days. The leading medico-legal issues were failure to diagnose and delayed diagnosis, while among the cases, 35.7% had outcomes in favor of the plaintiff. Conclusions: Appendicitis remains an area of high risk of litigation. Malpractice suits are often due to failure to diagnose and failure to treat, but there maybe proactive measures to address the modern pitfalls to promote a decreased litigation risk and patient safety
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
即使是虫子也会转动2020年以来的阑尾炎医疗事故诉讼
背景:阑尾炎是蚓状阑尾的炎症,是世界上最常见的腹部外科急症。然而,它的诊断存在许多隐患,包括缺乏致病体征或症状,以及实验室检测的预测价值较低。阑尾炎是导致医疗事故的主要原因。方法:我们使用谷歌案例法,以阑尾炎和渎职为搜索关键词,查找阑尾炎诉讼案例。我们收录了自 2020 年以来发布的案例。我们收录了所有确诊为阑尾炎的案例。我们收录了因阑尾炎及其治疗并发症而提起的渎职案件。我们关注的结果包括:案件发表的国家、被告、患者首次抱怨腹痛的日期到阑尾切除术/治疗的日期、诊断和咨询、医疗和法律问题,以及案件的最终判决/意见/决定:共确定了 44 个病例,并对这些病例进行了筛选。共有 14 个病例符合纳入标准并进行了分析。大多数病例的发病方式并不典型,大多数患者明确表示有不同程度的腹痛。大多数被告是医学博士和医院。从出现症状到确诊的平均时间为 2.4 +/- 2.1 天,而确诊的最长时间为 7 天。主要的医疗法律问题是诊断失败和诊断延迟,而在这些案件中,有 35.7% 的结果有利于原告。结论:阑尾炎仍然是一个高诉讼风险领域。渎职诉讼通常是由于诊断失败和治疗失败造成的,但也许有一些积极的措施可以解决这些现代隐患,从而降低诉讼风险,保障患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The VIPR-1 trial (Visualizing Ischemia in the Pancreatic Remnant) - Assessing the role of intraoperative indocyanine green perfusion of the transected pancreas in predicting postoperative pancreatic leaks: protocol for a prospective phase II trial. Insulin-dependence as a Predictor of Shortened Cancer-specific Survival in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Study from the United States Neuroendocrine Study Group Chyme Reinfusion Practices in the Neonatal Population Traumatic Amputations - A Nationwide Epidemiological Analysis of a developing country over 16 years Development and Validation of Collaborative Robot-assisted Cutting Method for Iliac Crest Flap Raising: Randomized Crossover Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1