Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31321315›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2019

A focused mapping review and synthesis of a priori risk factors associated with medical misconduct.

Edward Croft, Maria Tighe Clark, Nikolaos Efstathiou, Caroline Bradbury-Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct against health practitioners: a scoping review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Edward CroftHammersmith Medicines Research, London, UK.
Maria Tighe ClarkInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2932-110X
Nikolaos EfstathiouInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.
Caroline Bradbury-JonesInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Medical misconduct is an international problem. It is judged according to whether a doctor has endangered the health of the public. Little is known about the risk factors associated with medical misconduct. To inform patient safety, we undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) of tribunal reports retrieved from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS). Methods: A four-phase FMRS was undertaken: (1) identification and retrieval of 1-year tribunal transcripts from the MPTS (focus), (2) analysis of transcripts to identify patterns mapped to 'a priori' risk factors (mapping), (3) peer review of the data (calibration) and (4) creation of a risk profile (synthesis). Results: Out of the 351 investigative tribunals, 249 (70.94%) resulted in a guilty verdict. 82.73% of all guilty verdicts led to the removal of the doctor from practice. Through the identification of four a priori risk factors, we developed a model of risk associated with medical misconduct: (1) being male, (2) primary medical qualification (PMQ) outside of the UK, (3) working within general practice and surgical specialties, and (4) having passed PMQ more than 20 years ago. Notable 'unconfirmed' factors, such as locum work, PMQ achieved outside of the European Union, increasing age and lack of clinical guidance are also relevant to what is deemed professional behaviour and what is not. Conclusions: The findings can inform debates about patient safety and lay the groundwork for further research into medical misconduct. Prospective studies should focus on confirming the contributory factors and relationship between these four a priori risk factors for medical misconduct: being male, PMQ outside of the UK, increasing age and working in general practice or surgical settings.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMalpracticeMiddle AgedProfessional MisconductRisk FactorsUnited Kingdomhealthcare quality improvementhuman factorsmedical educationpatient safetysafety culture

Identifiers

PMID31321315
PMCPMC6606077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.