Cargando…

Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease

OBJECTIVE: To present common technical and non‐technical issues leading to medicolegal litigation, illustrated by a series of 54 cases, with the aim of using these examples to prevent harm to patients and to prevent surgeons from having to experience the stress of litigation. METHODS: A series of 78...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Bingyuan, Goldsmith, Louise, Turney, Ben, Reynard, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35417627
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15750
_version_ 1784804376790958080
author Yang, Bingyuan
Goldsmith, Louise
Turney, Ben
Reynard, John
author_facet Yang, Bingyuan
Goldsmith, Louise
Turney, Ben
Reynard, John
author_sort Yang, Bingyuan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To present common technical and non‐technical issues leading to medicolegal litigation, illustrated by a series of 54 cases, with the aim of using these examples to prevent harm to patients and to prevent surgeons from having to experience the stress of litigation. METHODS: A series of 78 medicolegal litigation cases reviewed by a single expert witness over 13 years from 2008 to 2021 was analysed by two reviewers. Twenty‐nine cases were identified as having a non‐technical learning point and 25 were identified as having a technical learning point. These are discussed using illustrative examples and the steps that could have avoided these issues are considered. RESULTS: All major issues and themes are illustrated with cases demonstrating the errors that lead to litigation and the often‐simple steps that can be taken to avoid them. Out of 29 non‐technical issues, 13 involved consent issues (45%), eight involved delays in treatment (28%) and eight involved failure to provide adequate safeguarding advice (28%). Out of 25 technical issues, 13 cases involved intra‐operative problems (52%) including nine ureteric injuries, eight involved errors or omissions in the immediate preoperative period (32%) and four resulted from decisions around emergency decompression of the obstructed infected kidney. These emergency cases featured complications of amputation (two out of four) and death (one out of four). These decisions are complex and there are many subtleties to these cases, which are discussed in detail. CONCLUSION: We hope that this case series highlights the potentially catastrophic outcomes of even small errors of judgement, and allows careful stone surgeons to learn from the experiences of those unfortunate others without having to encounter these situations themselves.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9543453
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95434532022-10-14 Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease Yang, Bingyuan Goldsmith, Louise Turney, Ben Reynard, John BJU Int Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To present common technical and non‐technical issues leading to medicolegal litigation, illustrated by a series of 54 cases, with the aim of using these examples to prevent harm to patients and to prevent surgeons from having to experience the stress of litigation. METHODS: A series of 78 medicolegal litigation cases reviewed by a single expert witness over 13 years from 2008 to 2021 was analysed by two reviewers. Twenty‐nine cases were identified as having a non‐technical learning point and 25 were identified as having a technical learning point. These are discussed using illustrative examples and the steps that could have avoided these issues are considered. RESULTS: All major issues and themes are illustrated with cases demonstrating the errors that lead to litigation and the often‐simple steps that can be taken to avoid them. Out of 29 non‐technical issues, 13 involved consent issues (45%), eight involved delays in treatment (28%) and eight involved failure to provide adequate safeguarding advice (28%). Out of 25 technical issues, 13 cases involved intra‐operative problems (52%) including nine ureteric injuries, eight involved errors or omissions in the immediate preoperative period (32%) and four resulted from decisions around emergency decompression of the obstructed infected kidney. These emergency cases featured complications of amputation (two out of four) and death (one out of four). These decisions are complex and there are many subtleties to these cases, which are discussed in detail. CONCLUSION: We hope that this case series highlights the potentially catastrophic outcomes of even small errors of judgement, and allows careful stone surgeons to learn from the experiences of those unfortunate others without having to encounter these situations themselves. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-01 2022-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9543453/ /pubmed/35417627 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15750 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Yang, Bingyuan
Goldsmith, Louise
Turney, Ben
Reynard, John
Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease
title Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease
title_full Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease
title_fullStr Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease
title_full_unstemmed Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease
title_short Litigation in the management of urinary stone disease
title_sort litigation in the management of urinary stone disease
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35417627
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15750
work_keys_str_mv AT yangbingyuan litigationinthemanagementofurinarystonedisease
AT goldsmithlouise litigationinthemanagementofurinarystonedisease
AT turneyben litigationinthemanagementofurinarystonedisease
AT reynardjohn litigationinthemanagementofurinarystonedisease