Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29214284›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2018

Characteristics of Medical Liability Claims Against Dermatologists From 1991 Through 2015.

Heather Kornmehl, Sanminder Singh, Brandon L Adler, Alexander E Wolf, Dean A Bochner, April W Armstrong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Heather KornmehlDrexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sanminder SinghUniversity of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis.
Brandon L AdlerDepartment of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Alexander E WolfAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Los Angeles, California.
Dean A BochnerHorvitz & Levy LLP, Burbank, California.
April W ArmstrongDepartment of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Recognizing malpractice trends in the field of dermatology is important for establishing safeguards for patient care and minimizing liability. However, there is a lack of published data on malpractice claims against dermatologists. Objective: To determine characteristics of medical professional liability claims in the field of dermatology and to compare these claims with those against all physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: We examined malpractice liability data collected on dermatologists and other physicians insured by companies that report data to the Physician Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Project (PIAA-DSP), a nationally representative liability claims registry. Data analyzed spanned the years 1991 through 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics of dermatologists subject to claims, characteristics of closed claims, medical errors associated with closed claims, and patient outcomes leading to closed claims. Results: Data on a total of 90 743 closed claims were analyzed, 1084 (1.2%) against dermatologists and 89 659 (98.8%) against nondermatologists. More lawsuits were brought against male (n = 753, 69.5%) than female dermatologists (n = 270, 24.9%); 5.6% of claims (n = 61) did not identify the physician's sex. Full-time practitioners (n = 1035, 95.5%) and those in solo practice (n = 600, 55.4%) were more likely to be sued than those in group practices (n = 429, 39.6%) and institutions (n = 31, 2.9%). Most claims against dermatologists were abandoned, withdrawn, or dismissed (n = 735, 67.8%). Between 2006 and 2015, trial verdicts favoring defendants exceeded trial verdicts favoring plaintiffs by a factor of 7. Errors that occurred during a procedure spawned the most claims (n = 305), of which 102 were paid. Misdiagnoses comprised the second-highest number of claims (n = 192), of which 62 were paid. The average recovery per claim was $238 145. The most common procedure leading to claims was skin operations (420 claims, of which 130 were paid). The most common adverse patient outcome associated with claims was dyschromia, resulting in 171 claims, of which 40 were paid. Conclusions and Relevance: Male dermatologists were sued more often than female dermatologists. Overall, alleged errors in procedures and misdiagnosis gave rise to the most lawsuits. Dyschromia was the most common adverse outcome alleged in lawsuits.

Indexed as

Liability, LegalClinical CompetenceDatabases, FactualDermatologistsDermatologyFemaleHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMaleMalpracticeMedical ErrorsPhysicians, WomenPractice Patterns, Physicians'Retrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29214284
PMCPMC5839273

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.