Cargando…

Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND: The clinical specialty of obstetrics is under particular scrutiny with increasing litigation costs and unnecessary tests and procedures done in attempts to prevent litigation. We aimed to identify reports evaluating or comparing the effectiveness of medical liability reforms and quality...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cardoso, Roberta, Zarin, Wasifa, Nincic, Vera, Barber, Sarah Louise, Gulmezoglu, Ahmet Metin, Wilson, Charlotte, Wilson, Katherine, McDonald, Heather, Kenny, Meghan, Warren, Rachel, Straus, Sharon E., Tricco, Andrea C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28874176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0569-5
_version_ 1783261743738257408
author Cardoso, Roberta
Zarin, Wasifa
Nincic, Vera
Barber, Sarah Louise
Gulmezoglu, Ahmet Metin
Wilson, Charlotte
Wilson, Katherine
McDonald, Heather
Kenny, Meghan
Warren, Rachel
Straus, Sharon E.
Tricco, Andrea C.
author_facet Cardoso, Roberta
Zarin, Wasifa
Nincic, Vera
Barber, Sarah Louise
Gulmezoglu, Ahmet Metin
Wilson, Charlotte
Wilson, Katherine
McDonald, Heather
Kenny, Meghan
Warren, Rachel
Straus, Sharon E.
Tricco, Andrea C.
author_sort Cardoso, Roberta
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The clinical specialty of obstetrics is under particular scrutiny with increasing litigation costs and unnecessary tests and procedures done in attempts to prevent litigation. We aimed to identify reports evaluating or comparing the effectiveness of medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies in improving litigation-related outcomes in obstetrics. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review with a 6-week timeline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline were searched for publications in English from 2004 until June 2015. The selection criteria for screening were established a priori and pilot-tested. We included reports comparing or evaluating the impact of obstetrics-related medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies on cost containment and litigation settlement across all countries. All levels of screening were done by two reviewers independently, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. In addition, two reviewers independently extracted relevant data using a pre-tested form, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The results were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: The search resulted in 2729 citations, of which 14 reports met our eligibility criteria. Several initiatives for improving the medical malpractice litigation system were found, including no-fault approaches, patient safety policy initiatives, communication and resolution, caps on compensation and attorney fees, alternative payment system and liabilities, and limitations on litigation. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few litigation policies in obstetrics were evaluated or compared. Included documents showed that initiatives to reduce medical malpractice litigation could be associated with a decrease in adverse and malpractice events. However, due to heterogeneous settings (e.g., economic structure, healthcare system) and variation in the outcomes reported, the advantages and disadvantages of initiatives may vary. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0569-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5586050
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55860502017-09-06 Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review Cardoso, Roberta Zarin, Wasifa Nincic, Vera Barber, Sarah Louise Gulmezoglu, Ahmet Metin Wilson, Charlotte Wilson, Katherine McDonald, Heather Kenny, Meghan Warren, Rachel Straus, Sharon E. Tricco, Andrea C. Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: The clinical specialty of obstetrics is under particular scrutiny with increasing litigation costs and unnecessary tests and procedures done in attempts to prevent litigation. We aimed to identify reports evaluating or comparing the effectiveness of medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies in improving litigation-related outcomes in obstetrics. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review with a 6-week timeline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline were searched for publications in English from 2004 until June 2015. The selection criteria for screening were established a priori and pilot-tested. We included reports comparing or evaluating the impact of obstetrics-related medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies on cost containment and litigation settlement across all countries. All levels of screening were done by two reviewers independently, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. In addition, two reviewers independently extracted relevant data using a pre-tested form, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The results were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: The search resulted in 2729 citations, of which 14 reports met our eligibility criteria. Several initiatives for improving the medical malpractice litigation system were found, including no-fault approaches, patient safety policy initiatives, communication and resolution, caps on compensation and attorney fees, alternative payment system and liabilities, and limitations on litigation. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few litigation policies in obstetrics were evaluated or compared. Included documents showed that initiatives to reduce medical malpractice litigation could be associated with a decrease in adverse and malpractice events. However, due to heterogeneous settings (e.g., economic structure, healthcare system) and variation in the outcomes reported, the advantages and disadvantages of initiatives may vary. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0569-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5586050/ /pubmed/28874176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0569-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Cardoso, Roberta
Zarin, Wasifa
Nincic, Vera
Barber, Sarah Louise
Gulmezoglu, Ahmet Metin
Wilson, Charlotte
Wilson, Katherine
McDonald, Heather
Kenny, Meghan
Warren, Rachel
Straus, Sharon E.
Tricco, Andrea C.
Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review
title Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review
title_full Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review
title_fullStr Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review
title_short Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review
title_sort evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28874176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0569-5
work_keys_str_mv AT cardosoroberta evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT zarinwasifa evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT nincicvera evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT barbersarahlouise evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT gulmezogluahmetmetin evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT wilsoncharlotte evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT wilsonkatherine evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT mcdonaldheather evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT kennymeghan evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT warrenrachel evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT straussharone evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview
AT triccoandreac evaluativereportsonmedicalmalpracticepoliciesinobstetricsarapidscopingreview