Cargando…

Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015

BACKGROUND: Urethral catheters (UCs) are commonly used in medicine and are associated with complications such as urinary tract infections (UTIs) and trauma. Given UC complications and their ubiquitous usage in healthcare, there is a potential for liability risk. We aim to explore litigation involvin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Awad, Mohannad A., Osterberg, E. Charles, Chang, Helena, Gaither, Thomas W., Alwaal, Amjad, Fox, Ryan, Breyer, Benjamin N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5071201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27785434
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.08.02
_version_ 1782461249013940224
author Awad, Mohannad A.
Osterberg, E. Charles
Chang, Helena
Gaither, Thomas W.
Alwaal, Amjad
Fox, Ryan
Breyer, Benjamin N.
author_facet Awad, Mohannad A.
Osterberg, E. Charles
Chang, Helena
Gaither, Thomas W.
Alwaal, Amjad
Fox, Ryan
Breyer, Benjamin N.
author_sort Awad, Mohannad A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Urethral catheters (UCs) are commonly used in medicine and are associated with complications such as urinary tract infections (UTIs) and trauma. Given UC complications and their ubiquitous usage in healthcare, there is a potential for liability risk. We aim to explore litigation involving UC-related complications. METHODS: The LexisNexis legal database was queried for all state and federal cases from January 1965 through October 2015 using the terms “urethral catheter” or “Foley catheter” in combination with “medical malpractice”, “negligence”, “medical error”, and “trauma”. Each case was reviewed for reported medical characteristics and legal aspects, including the outcome of the case. RESULTS: Our search yielded 29 cases. Urologists were the most common providers cited as defendants (21%), all of whom were successful in their defense. The most common malpractice claim was for traumatic insertion (48%). Pain was the most common type of damage claimed by plaintiffs (28%), followed by UTI (24%). Nineteen (66%) cases favored defendants, while 10 (34%) cases favored the plaintiffs, of which 2 (7%) were settled out of the court. In settled cases, the mean settlement received by plaintiffs was $55,750 (range, $25,000–$86,500). The mean award to plaintiffs for cases determined by the court was $112,991 (range, $4,000–$325,000). CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread usage of UC over a 50-year period, lawsuits centered on UC misuse are rare at the state and federal court levels. Of litigated cases, urologists are commonly involved yet have successful defenses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5071201
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50712012016-10-26 Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015 Awad, Mohannad A. Osterberg, E. Charles Chang, Helena Gaither, Thomas W. Alwaal, Amjad Fox, Ryan Breyer, Benjamin N. Transl Androl Urol Original Article BACKGROUND: Urethral catheters (UCs) are commonly used in medicine and are associated with complications such as urinary tract infections (UTIs) and trauma. Given UC complications and their ubiquitous usage in healthcare, there is a potential for liability risk. We aim to explore litigation involving UC-related complications. METHODS: The LexisNexis legal database was queried for all state and federal cases from January 1965 through October 2015 using the terms “urethral catheter” or “Foley catheter” in combination with “medical malpractice”, “negligence”, “medical error”, and “trauma”. Each case was reviewed for reported medical characteristics and legal aspects, including the outcome of the case. RESULTS: Our search yielded 29 cases. Urologists were the most common providers cited as defendants (21%), all of whom were successful in their defense. The most common malpractice claim was for traumatic insertion (48%). Pain was the most common type of damage claimed by plaintiffs (28%), followed by UTI (24%). Nineteen (66%) cases favored defendants, while 10 (34%) cases favored the plaintiffs, of which 2 (7%) were settled out of the court. In settled cases, the mean settlement received by plaintiffs was $55,750 (range, $25,000–$86,500). The mean award to plaintiffs for cases determined by the court was $112,991 (range, $4,000–$325,000). CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread usage of UC over a 50-year period, lawsuits centered on UC misuse are rare at the state and federal court levels. Of litigated cases, urologists are commonly involved yet have successful defenses. AME Publishing Company 2016-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5071201/ /pubmed/27785434 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.08.02 Text en 2016 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
spellingShingle Original Article
Awad, Mohannad A.
Osterberg, E. Charles
Chang, Helena
Gaither, Thomas W.
Alwaal, Amjad
Fox, Ryan
Breyer, Benjamin N.
Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015
title Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015
title_full Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015
title_fullStr Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015
title_full_unstemmed Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015
title_short Urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015
title_sort urethral catheters and medical malpractice: a legal database review from 1965 to 2015
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5071201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27785434
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.08.02
work_keys_str_mv AT awadmohannada urethralcathetersandmedicalmalpracticealegaldatabasereviewfrom1965to2015
AT osterbergecharles urethralcathetersandmedicalmalpracticealegaldatabasereviewfrom1965to2015
AT changhelena urethralcathetersandmedicalmalpracticealegaldatabasereviewfrom1965to2015
AT gaitherthomasw urethralcathetersandmedicalmalpracticealegaldatabasereviewfrom1965to2015
AT alwaalamjad urethralcathetersandmedicalmalpracticealegaldatabasereviewfrom1965to2015
AT foxryan urethralcathetersandmedicalmalpracticealegaldatabasereviewfrom1965to2015
AT breyerbenjaminn urethralcathetersandmedicalmalpracticealegaldatabasereviewfrom1965to2015