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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |