Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24780016›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2014

A nine-year review of medicolegal claims in neurosurgery.

S Mukherjee, C Pringle, M Crocker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Clinical students' reflections on the preclinical anatomy learning experience.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S MukherjeeSt George's Healthcare NHS Trust, UK.
C Pringle
M Crocker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNeurosurgery remains among the highest malpractice risk specialties. This study aimed to identify areas in neurosurgery associated with litigation, attendant causes and costs.

methodsRetrospective analysis was conducted of 42 closed litigation cases treated by neurosurgeons at one hospital between March 2004 and March 2013. Data included clinical event, timing and reason for claim, operative course and legal outcome.

resultsTwenty-nine claims were defended out of court and twelve were settled out of court. One case required court attendance and was defended. Of the 42 claims, 28, 13 and 1 related to spinal (0.3% of caseload), cranial (0.1% of caseload) and peripheral nerve (0.07% of caseload) surgery respectively. The most common causes of claims were faulty surgical technique (43%), delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis (17%), lack of information (14%) and delayed treatment (12%), with a likelihood of success of 39%, 29%, 17% and 20% respectively. The highest median payouts were for claims against faulty surgical technique (£230,000) and delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis (£212,650). The mean delay between clinical event and claim was 664 days.

conclusionsSpinal surgery carries the highest litigation risk versus cranial and peripheral nerve surgery. Claims are most commonly against faulty surgical technique and delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis, which have the highest success rates and payouts. In spinal surgery, the most common cause of claims is faulty surgical technique. In cranial surgery, the most common cause is lack of information. Claims may occur years after the clinical event, necessitating thorough contemporaneous documentation for adequate future defence. We emphasise thorough patient consultation and meticulous surgical technique to minimise litigation in neurosurgical practice.

Indexed as

Compensation and RedressDiagnostic ErrorsHumansLiability, LegalMalpracticeNeurosurgical ProceduresRetrospective StudiesTrauma, Nervous SystemUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID24780016
PMCPMC4574407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.