SynthesisBMJ paediatrics open2021
Systematic review of medical literature for medicolegal claims and complaints involving neonates.
Synthesis in BMJ paediatrics open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causes, Characteristics, and Risk Factors of Medical Damage Liability Disputes: A 13-Year Retrospective Analysis of 1761 Litigation Cases in Chongqing, China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trends in Pediatric Malpractice Claims at a Tertiary Children's Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Neonatal resuscitation program (NRP) guidelines and timing of major resuscitation events in delivery rooms at a level III NICU: Understanding deviations.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Complaints and malpractice claims by families on the care of their babies are pertinent issue. Beyond just the financial implications, it involves harm to babies and distress to parents. Objective: The aim was to review published reports of complaints by families on the care of their babies in the neonatal units in order to understand the nature of these complaints and the areas of care that they relate to. Methods: We considered articles in English, which report on complaints made by families to organisations providing neonatal care. We performed our structured search on AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, SCOPUS and MEDLINE from January 2000 to December 2020. A total of 378 articles were appraised using eligibility criteria. Results: A total of 12 articles were included. The most common category of complaint was delayed/incorrect diagnosis. Communication issues were highlighted as a significant category of complaints. The majority of such claims were between the physicians and families. Factors implicated for clinician's errors that resulted in complaints were lack of clinical and communication training, inadequate supervision of junior clinicians, work culture and hierarchy, not listening to families' concerns and system failure. Conclusions: The most frequent categories of complaint reported in our systematic review were delayed/incorrect diagnosis and delayed/incorrect treatment. Organisations should be encouraged to share complaints data as it can facilitate shared learning. An understanding of human factor principles and its role in patient safety is also emphasised in this report in order to optimise patient outcomes and improve experience for families requiring neonatal care.
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.