ArticleQuality & safety in health care2004
Learning from malpractice claims about negligent, adverse events in primary care in the United States.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patients' views of adverse events in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review to assess methods and the content of what patients consider to be adverse events.BMC family practice · 2016Pooled it
- Randomized Trial of Reducing Ambulatory Malpractice and Safety Risk: Results of the Massachusetts PROMISES Project.Medical care · 2017Trial
- Electronic Trigger-Based Intervention to Reduce Delays in Diagnostic Evaluation for Cancer: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2015Trial
- How physicians approach prostate cancer screening before and after losing a lawsuit.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Article
- Wrong-side imaging orders: automated detection using electronic health record data - a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Misdiagnosis of multiple myeloma as postoperative bone metastasis of rectal cancer: A case report and literature review.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Article
- Current Irish medicolegal landscape: an unsustainable trajectory.BMJ open quality · 2023Review
- What quantifies good primary care in the United States? A review of algorithms and metrics using real-world data.BMC primary care · 2023Review
- Creating a Safety Net Process to Improve Colon Cancer Diagnosis in Patients With Rectal Bleeding.The Permanente journal · 2022Article
- Diagnostic delays in infectious diseases.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2022Article
- Understanding the processes behind the decisions - GPs and complex multimorbidity decision making.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Disease-Specific and Generic Diagnostic Pitfalls: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Article
- Epidemiology of healthcare harm in New Zealand general practice: a retrospective records review study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Medicines use review service in community pharmacies in Spain: REVISA project.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Psychometric Testing of Errors of Care Omission Survey: A New Tool on Patient Safety in Primary Care.Journal of patient safety · 2021Article
- Learning From Lawsuits: Using Malpractice Claims Data to Develop Care Transitions Planning Tools.Journal of patient safety · 2020Article
- Medical Liability of Residents in Taiwan Criminal Court: An Analysis of Closed Malpractice Cases.Emergency medicine international · 2020Article
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe epidemiology, risks, and outcomes of errors in primary care are poorly understood. Malpractice claims brought for negligent adverse events offer a useful insight into errors in primary care.
methodsPhysician Insurers Association of America malpractice claims data (1985-2000) were analyzed for proportions of negligent claims by primary care specialty, setting, severity, health condition, and attributed cause. We also calculated risks of a claim for condition-specific negligent events relative to the prevalence of those conditions in primary care.
resultsOf 49345 primary care claims, 26126 (53%) were peer reviewed and 5921 (23%) were assessed as negligent; 68% of claims were for negligent events in outpatient settings. No single condition accounted for more than 5% of all negligent claims, but the underlying causes were more clustered with "diagnosis error" making up one third of claims. The ratios of condition-specific negligent event claims relative to the frequency of those conditions in primary care revealed a significantly disproportionate risk for a number of conditions (for example, appendicitis was 25 times more likely to generate a claim for negligence than breast cancer).
conclusionsClaims data identify conditions and processes where primary health care in the United States is prone to go awry. The burden of severe outcomes and death from malpractice claims made against primary care physicians was greater in primary care outpatient settings than in hospitals. Although these data enhance information about error related negligent events in primary care, particularly when combined with other primary care data, there are many operating limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.