加拿大传染病医生的医疗法律风险:回顾性审查。

Q3 Medicine JAMMI Pub Date : 2024-01-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3138/jammi-2023-0022
Karen Pacheco, Jun Ji, Kate Barbosa, Karen Lemay, Jacqueline H Fortier, Gary E Garber
{"title":"加拿大传染病医生的医疗法律风险:回顾性审查。","authors":"Karen Pacheco, Jun Ji, Kate Barbosa, Karen Lemay, Jacqueline H Fortier, Gary E Garber","doi":"10.3138/jammi-2023-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There is little known about the medico-legal risk for infectious disease specialists in Canada. The objective of this study was to identify the causes of these medico-legal risks with the goal of improving patient safety and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 10-year retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) closed medico-legal cases from 2012 to 2021 was performed. Peer expert criticism was used to identify factors that contributed to the medico-legal cases at the provider, team, or system level, and were contrasted with the patient complaint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period there were 571 infectious disease physician members of the CMPA. There were 96 patient medico-legal cases: 45 College complaints, 40 civil legal matters, and 11 hospital complaints. Ten cases were associated with severe patient harm or death. Patients were most likely to complain about perceived deficient assessments (54%), diagnostic errors (53%), inadequate monitoring or follow-up (20%), and unprofessional manner (20%). In contrast, peer experts were most critical of the areas of diagnostic assessment (20%), deficient assessment (10%), failure to perform test/intervention (8%), and failure to refer (6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While infectious disease physicians tend to have lower medico-legal risks compared to other health care providers, these risks still do exist. This descriptive study provides insights into the types of cases, presenting conditions, and patient allegations associated with their practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":36782,"journal":{"name":"JAMMI","volume":"8 4","pages":"319-327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10797760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medico-legal risk of infectious disease physicians in Canada: A retrospective review.\",\"authors\":\"Karen Pacheco, Jun Ji, Kate Barbosa, Karen Lemay, Jacqueline H Fortier, Gary E Garber\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/jammi-2023-0022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There is little known about the medico-legal risk for infectious disease specialists in Canada. The objective of this study was to identify the causes of these medico-legal risks with the goal of improving patient safety and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 10-year retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) closed medico-legal cases from 2012 to 2021 was performed. Peer expert criticism was used to identify factors that contributed to the medico-legal cases at the provider, team, or system level, and were contrasted with the patient complaint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period there were 571 infectious disease physician members of the CMPA. There were 96 patient medico-legal cases: 45 College complaints, 40 civil legal matters, and 11 hospital complaints. Ten cases were associated with severe patient harm or death. Patients were most likely to complain about perceived deficient assessments (54%), diagnostic errors (53%), inadequate monitoring or follow-up (20%), and unprofessional manner (20%). In contrast, peer experts were most critical of the areas of diagnostic assessment (20%), deficient assessment (10%), failure to perform test/intervention (8%), and failure to refer (6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While infectious disease physicians tend to have lower medico-legal risks compared to other health care providers, these risks still do exist. This descriptive study provides insights into the types of cases, presenting conditions, and patient allegations associated with their practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMMI\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"319-327\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10797760/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMMI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2023-0022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMMI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2023-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:人们对加拿大传染病专家的医疗法律风险知之甚少。本研究旨在找出这些医疗法律风险的原因,从而改善患者的安全和治疗效果:方法:对加拿大医疗保护协会(CMPA)2012年至2021年期间结案的医疗法律案件进行了为期10年的回顾性分析。同行专家的批评意见被用来确定在医疗服务提供者、团队或系统层面导致医疗法律案件的因素,并与患者投诉进行对比:结果:在研究期间,共有 571 名传染病医生加入了 CMPA。共有 96 起患者医疗法律案件:其中学院投诉 45 起,民事法律案件 40 起,医院投诉 11 起。其中 10 起与严重伤害患者或导致患者死亡有关。患者最有可能投诉的是评估不足(54%)、诊断错误(53%)、监测或随访不足(20%)以及态度不专业(20%)。相比之下,同行专家对诊断评估(20%)、评估缺陷(10%)、未进行测试/干预(8%)和未转诊(6%)方面的批评最多:虽然与其他医疗服务提供者相比,传染病医生的医疗法律风险较低,但这些风险仍然存在。这项描述性研究提供了与传染病医生执业相关的病例类型、病症和患者指控方面的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Medico-legal risk of infectious disease physicians in Canada: A retrospective review.

Objective: There is little known about the medico-legal risk for infectious disease specialists in Canada. The objective of this study was to identify the causes of these medico-legal risks with the goal of improving patient safety and outcomes.

Methods: A 10-year retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) closed medico-legal cases from 2012 to 2021 was performed. Peer expert criticism was used to identify factors that contributed to the medico-legal cases at the provider, team, or system level, and were contrasted with the patient complaint.

Results: During the study period there were 571 infectious disease physician members of the CMPA. There were 96 patient medico-legal cases: 45 College complaints, 40 civil legal matters, and 11 hospital complaints. Ten cases were associated with severe patient harm or death. Patients were most likely to complain about perceived deficient assessments (54%), diagnostic errors (53%), inadequate monitoring or follow-up (20%), and unprofessional manner (20%). In contrast, peer experts were most critical of the areas of diagnostic assessment (20%), deficient assessment (10%), failure to perform test/intervention (8%), and failure to refer (6%).

Conclusion: While infectious disease physicians tend to have lower medico-legal risks compared to other health care providers, these risks still do exist. This descriptive study provides insights into the types of cases, presenting conditions, and patient allegations associated with their practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMMI
JAMMI Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
A case report of Capnocytophaga canimorsus meningitis with failure of ceftriaxone therapy. Impact of climate change on amoeba and the bacteria they host. Shifting the antibiotic rhetoric in children from 'just in case' to 'disclose the risk': Has the time come? Carriage of Haemophilus influenzae serotype A in children: Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) study. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy as the presenting feature in a patient with occult low-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis.
×
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