ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2016
Litigations in Obstetric and Gynecological Practice: Can it be prevented? A Probability to Possibility.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of medico-legal claims related to deliveries: Caesarean section vs. vaginal delivery.PloS one · 2024Article
- Experience of obstetricians and gynecologists in the management of medicolegal cases in Egypt.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Medicolegal Aspects of Obstetric Critical Care.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- Agreement between simulated patients and faculty: Assessment of communication skills during objective structured clinical examination.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLitigation in medical practice is becoming a global problem. So it is necessary to know what constitutes negligence and what is required to prove it and how far it is preventable.
objectivesTo analyze the prevalence and reasons for litigations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for medical negligence and deficiency in service. To analyze on what grounds negligence was proved and to know whether it was preventable. MATERIALS AND
methodsIt is a retrospective analysis of the judgments obtained from all the District Consumer Courts of South India and was specifically analyzed for reasons in filing the case, nature of settlement, and factors considered in deciding negligence especially in the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
resultsTotally 1317 cases were found on medical negligence and deficiency in service, with 347 (26.34 %) cases on Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBG) topping the list. Out of 347 cases on OBG 312 (89.91 %) cases were settled in the Courts. Negligence was proved in 98 (31.41 %) cases and 214 (68.59 %) cases were dismissed without compensation. 77 (24.68 %) cases on gynecology were filed with common reasons for litigation being Post-op complications, intraop complications (11.68 %), extension of surgery beyond consent (2.6 %) and out of 235 (75.32 %) cases on Obstetrics, tubectomy failure (23.82 %), birth asphyxia (10.21 %), traumatic injury to new born (5.96 %) were the common reasons for litigations. Inadequate documentation and improper consent were the main factors considered in deciding negligence on part of the doctors.
conclusionWith reasonable skill and care in diagnosis and treatment, proper documentation and legally valid consent it is not probable but possible to prevent litigations.
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.