Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33856320›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2021

Emergency Department and Urgent Care Medical Malpractice Claims 2001-15.

Kelly E Wong, P Divya Parikh, Kwon C Miller, Mark R Zonfrillo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A review of medical malpractice cases involving trainees in the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Let's Be Honest: These Medical Malpractice Cases Were a Pain in the Back.Clinical practice and cases in emergency medicine · 2022
    Article
  7. 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.

Kelly E WongAlpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.
P Divya ParikhMedical Professional Liability Association, Department of Research and Education, Rockville, Maryland.
Kwon C MillerMedical Professional Liability Association, Department of Research Database Management, Rockville, Maryland.
Mark R ZonfrilloAlpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study reviews malpractice, also called medical professional liability (MPL), claims involving adult patients cared for in emergency departments (ED) and urgent care settings.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of closed MPL claims of adults over 18 years, from the Medical Professional Liability Association's Data Sharing Project database from 2001-2015, identifying 6,779 closed claims. Data included the total amount, origin, top medical specialties named, chief medical factors, top medical conditions, severity of injury, resolution, average indemnity, and defense costs of closed claims.

resultsOf 6,779 closed claims, 65.9% were dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed. Another 22.8% of claims settled for an average indemnity of $297,709. Of the 515 (7.6%) cases that went to trial, juries returned verdicts for the defendant in 92.6% of cases (477/515). The remaining 7.4% of cases (38/515) were jury verdicts for the plaintiff, with an average indemnity of $816,909. The most common resulting medical condition cited in paid claims was cardiac or cardiorespiratory arrest (10.4%). Error in diagnosis was the most common chief medical error cited in closed claims. Death was the most common level of severity listed in closed (38.5%) and paid (42.8%) claims. Claims reporting major permanent injury had the highest paid-to-closed ratio, and those reporting grave injury had the highest average indemnity of $686,239.

conclusionThis retrospective review updates the body of knowledge surrounding medical professional liability and represents the most recent analysis of claims in emergency medicine. As the majority of emergency providers will be named in a MPL claim during their career, it is essential to have a better understanding of the most common factors resulting in MPL claims.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareEmergency Medical ServicesEmergency MedicineEmergency Service, HospitalMalpracticeAdultFemaleHumansInsurance Claim ReviewLiability, LegalMaleRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33856320
PMCPMC7972370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.