Compensation After Surgical Treatment for Hallux Valgus: A Review of 369 Claims to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation 2010-2020.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001268
Per-Henrik Randsborg, Tommy Frøseth Aae, Ida Rashida Khan Bukholm, Rune Bruhn Jakobsen
{"title":"Compensation After Surgical Treatment for Hallux Valgus: A Review of 369 Claims to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation 2010-2020.","authors":"Per-Henrik Randsborg, Tommy Frøseth Aae, Ida Rashida Khan Bukholm, Rune Bruhn Jakobsen","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of the study is to identify the most common avoidable patient injuries related to hallux valgus surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed the claims reported to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) following surgery for hallux valgus in light of hospital volume. Data from NPE was categorized according to age, sex, reason for claim, and reason for accepted/rejected claim. The institutions were grouped by catchment population into low volume (<150,000), middle volume (150,000-300,000), and high volume (>300,000) institutions. The effect of hospital volume on the likelihood of an accepted claim was estimated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NPE received 369 claims of which 173 (46.9%) were accepted. The main reason for accepted claims was recurrence of the deformity, wrong level osteotomy or insufficient fixation. A quarter of the claims were accepted because of lack of indication and one in 5 accepted claims was due to a postoperative infection. Patient treated at low-volume institutions had a higher fraction of accepted claims ( P < 0.01). The odds ratio for an accepted claim in the low volume hospitals was 5.8 (95% confidence interval 4.1-8.3) compared with the middle- and high-volume institutions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The likelihood of a treatment error that leads to compensation was higher in low-volume institutions.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II Prospective cohort study.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001268","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study is to identify the most common avoidable patient injuries related to hallux valgus surgery.

Methods: We assessed the claims reported to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) following surgery for hallux valgus in light of hospital volume. Data from NPE was categorized according to age, sex, reason for claim, and reason for accepted/rejected claim. The institutions were grouped by catchment population into low volume (<150,000), middle volume (150,000-300,000), and high volume (>300,000) institutions. The effect of hospital volume on the likelihood of an accepted claim was estimated.

Results: NPE received 369 claims of which 173 (46.9%) were accepted. The main reason for accepted claims was recurrence of the deformity, wrong level osteotomy or insufficient fixation. A quarter of the claims were accepted because of lack of indication and one in 5 accepted claims was due to a postoperative infection. Patient treated at low-volume institutions had a higher fraction of accepted claims ( P < 0.01). The odds ratio for an accepted claim in the low volume hospitals was 5.8 (95% confidence interval 4.1-8.3) compared with the middle- and high-volume institutions.

Conclusions: The likelihood of a treatment error that leads to compensation was higher in low-volume institutions.

Level of evidence: Level II Prospective cohort study.

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
外翻手术治疗后的赔偿:2010-2020年挪威患者伤害赔偿制度369例索赔回顾。
目的:本研究旨在确定与足外翻手术相关的最常见的可避免的患者伤害:我们根据医院的收治量,对向挪威患者伤害赔偿系统(NPE)报告的外翻手术后的索赔进行了评估。我们根据年龄、性别、索赔原因以及接受/拒绝索赔的原因对来自NPE的数据进行了分类。这些机构按服务人口分为低容量(30 万)机构。估算了医院数量对接受索赔可能性的影响:NPE 收到 369 份索赔,其中 173 份(46.9%)被接受。理赔被接受的主要原因是畸形复发、截骨水平错误或固定不足。四分之一的理赔申请因缺乏适应症而被受理,五分之一的理赔申请因术后感染而被受理。在手术量较少的机构接受治疗的患者接受索赔的比例较高(P < 0.01)。与中型和大型医院相比,低剂量医院接受索赔的几率为 5.8(95% 置信区间为 4.1-8.3):结论:低诊疗量医院发生治疗错误并导致赔偿的可能性较高。II 级 前瞻性队列研究。
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
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
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