Incidence and nature of claims against dental practitioners for dental implant treatment in Israel between 2005 and 2015.

Manar Abu Wasel, Nirit Tagger Green, Michael Saminsky, Eitan Barnea, Eitan Mijiritsky, Roni Kolerman
{"title":"Incidence and nature of claims against dental practitioners for dental implant treatment in Israel between 2005 and 2015.","authors":"Manar Abu Wasel,&nbsp;Nirit Tagger Green,&nbsp;Michael Saminsky,&nbsp;Eitan Barnea,&nbsp;Eitan Mijiritsky,&nbsp;Roni Kolerman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In recent years, dental malpractice claims have increased dramatically worldwide. The present study aimed to categorise and analyse claims related to implant dentistry that resulted in legal decisions in Israel, seeking to contribute to dental risk management and improve patient safety.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study analysed legal claims registered by Medical Consultants International between 2005 and 2015. Only closed cases in which a decision was made were included. The parameters studied included patient age and sex, date of the complaint, treatment setting (private/public clinic), description of the adverse event and type of negligence claimed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 709 settled claims out of a total of 1066 that were litigated against dental practitioners in Israel during the study period. Of the patients included, 60.0% were women and 63.9% were aged 40 to 59 years. The most common treatment-related damage was neural injury in 133 patients (18.7% of the cohort). Unplanned changes in the treatment plan and violation of autonomy were the most frequent documentation-/information-related claims (66.3% and 32.7%, respectively). The legal responsibility of the dental practitioner was acknowledged in 89.0% of cases. Dental practitioners working in the private sector were more likely to be sued due to violation of autonomy than those working in public clinics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the main cause for lawsuits was actual bodily injury, the high percentage of documentation-/information-related malpractice claims calls for increased awareness of patients' autonomy and rights. Practitioners should dedicate a significant part of the entire treatment time to preoperative diagnosis and planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Purpose: In recent years, dental malpractice claims have increased dramatically worldwide. The present study aimed to categorise and analyse claims related to implant dentistry that resulted in legal decisions in Israel, seeking to contribute to dental risk management and improve patient safety.

Materials and methods: This study analysed legal claims registered by Medical Consultants International between 2005 and 2015. Only closed cases in which a decision was made were included. The parameters studied included patient age and sex, date of the complaint, treatment setting (private/public clinic), description of the adverse event and type of negligence claimed.

Results: The cohort included 709 settled claims out of a total of 1066 that were litigated against dental practitioners in Israel during the study period. Of the patients included, 60.0% were women and 63.9% were aged 40 to 59 years. The most common treatment-related damage was neural injury in 133 patients (18.7% of the cohort). Unplanned changes in the treatment plan and violation of autonomy were the most frequent documentation-/information-related claims (66.3% and 32.7%, respectively). The legal responsibility of the dental practitioner was acknowledged in 89.0% of cases. Dental practitioners working in the private sector were more likely to be sued due to violation of autonomy than those working in public clinics.

Conclusions: Although the main cause for lawsuits was actual bodily injury, the high percentage of documentation-/information-related malpractice claims calls for increased awareness of patients' autonomy and rights. Practitioners should dedicate a significant part of the entire treatment time to preoperative diagnosis and planning.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2005年至2015年间,以色列牙科从业者因种植牙治疗而索赔的发生率和性质。
目的:近年来,牙科事故索赔在世界范围内急剧增加。本研究旨在对导致以色列法律决定的与种植牙科相关的索赔进行分类和分析,以期有助于牙科风险管理和改善患者安全。材料和方法:本研究分析了2005年至2015年医疗顾问国际注册的法律索赔。只包括已作出决定的结案案件。研究的参数包括患者的年龄和性别、投诉日期、治疗环境(私立/公立诊所)、不良事件描述和索赔的疏忽类型。结果:在研究期间,该队列包括709项已解决的索赔,共计1066项针对以色列牙科医生的诉讼。纳入的患者中,60.0%为女性,63.9%年龄在40 - 59岁之间。133例患者(占队列的18.7%)最常见的治疗相关损伤是神经损伤。治疗计划的意外改变和侵犯自主权是最常见的文件/信息相关索赔(分别为66.3%和32.7%)。89.0%的病例承认牙科医生的法律责任。在私营诊所工作的牙医比在公立诊所工作的牙医更容易因侵犯自主权而被起诉。结论:虽然诉讼的主要原因是实际的身体伤害,但与文件/信息相关的医疗事故索赔的高比例要求提高对患者自主权和权利的认识。医生应该把整个治疗时间的很大一部分用于术前诊断和计划。
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
A 360-degree extraction socket classification for immediate dentoalveolar restoration. A randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of guided bone regeneration with polytetrafluoroethylene titanium-reinforced membranes, CAD/CAM semi-occlusive titanium meshes and CAD/CAM occlusive titanium foils in partially atrophic arches. Bone augmentation using titanium mesh: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical and histological efficacy of a new implant surface in achieving early and stable osseointegration: An in vivo study. Crown-to-implant ratio: A misnomer.
×
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