Lessons Learned from Dutch Medical Disciplinary Law Regarding Aortic Aneurysm and Dissection Care

Abstract

Background

The current study is an explanatory analysis of Dutch disciplinary law regarding aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection care. We aim to give insight in the way disciplinary judges rule on quality of care and to extract the lessons to be learned.

Methods

The online open-access governmental database, which includes all disciplinary rulings since 2010, was searched using search terms related to aortic aneurysm and dissection care. First, abstracts were screened for relevance. Thereafter, the full text of all remaining cases was read. Cases related to the diagnosis, treatment, or the postoperative phase of an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection were included. Characteristics were registered and analyzed for quantitative assessment. Each case was summarized and coded for qualitative analysis.

Results

Forty-eight first-instance cases were included, of which 19 (40%) were founded. Reprimands (n = 9) and warnings (n = 7) were the prevailing measures. Seven out of 8 appeal cases filed by plaintiffs were unfounded. Six out of 9 appeals filed by defendants were adjudged and led to a less severe measure. Most cases concerned the subject of ‘wrong treatment/wrong diagnosis’ (75%). Whether not recognizing an aneurysm or dissection led to disciplinary culpability depended on case-specific circumstances, and much importance was attached to adequate documentation. In many complaints, an element of inadequate communication was recognized.

Conclusions

Patient-involvement, clear communication, and implementing changes after a mistake could increase patient satisfaction, avert complaints, and prevent time-consuming trials. Maintaining adequate documentation and having knowledge on the analytical framework of the court is beneficial when confronted with a complaint.