Observational studyPloS one2022
Medico-legal dispute resolution: Experience of a tertiary-care hospital in Singapore.
Observational study in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Risk Factors and Liability Distribution in Medical Disputes Related to Spinal Diseases: A Six-Year Retrospective Study in Beijing.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of structured health education program on knowledge regarding forensic nursing among B.Sc. (Hons.) Nursing third- and fourth-year students of the College of Nursing, AIIMS Raipur.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- The Impacts of Applications of Criminal Law on Medical Practice.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2022Review
- Indian Dental Malpractice Claims and Lawsuits: A Medico-Legal Analysis.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe resource burden of healthcare disputes and medico-legal claims has been rising. A dispute resolution system operating at the hospital level could ameliorate this disturbing trend.
methodsThis is a retrospective observational study on patient complaints and medico-legal cases received by the dispute resolution unit of an acute tertiary hospital from 2011 to 2015. We described the characteristics and analysed the resolution methodology and outcomes of all closed medico-legal cases.
resultsPatient complaints significantly increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.2% (p<0.01), while medico-legal cases and ex-gratia payments for case settlements decreased at CAGRs of 4.8% (p<0.05) and 15.9% (p = 0.19), respectively. Out of 237 closed medico-legal cases, 88.6% were resolved without legal action, of which 78.1% were closed without any ex-gratia payments or waivers. Of the 11.4% of medico-legal cases that involved legal action, 66.7% were settled without ex-gratia payments or waivers. The primary resolution modes were the Patient Relations Service (PRS)'s engagement of the complainants and facilitation of written replies. No cases were brought to court. Cases were more likely resolved without legal action when there was engagement by the PRS (p = 0.009). These cases incurred a lower median settlement value than those with legal action.
conclusionOur hospital-based dispute resolution system which addressed patients' core dissatisfactions and providers' perspectives, through a process of early engagement, open disclosure, and fair negotiations, was able to promote claims resolution before legal action was taken. This early dispute resolution strategy contained costs and maintained provider-patient relationships and complements system-level mediation and arbitration to reduce medico-legal litigation.
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.