Malpractice claims related to diagnostic errors in the hospital

Ashwin Gupta, Ashley Snyder, Allen Kachalia, Scott Flanders, Sanjay Saint, Vineet Chopra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background Little is known about the incidence or significance of diagnostic error in the inpatient setting. We used a malpractice claims database to examine incidence, predictors and consequences of diagnosis-related paid malpractice claims in hospitalised patients. Methods The US National Practitioner Database was used to identify paid malpractice claims occurring between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2011. Patient and provider characteristics associated with paid claims were analysed using descriptive statistics. Differences between diagnosis-related paid claims and other paid claim types (eg, surgical, anaesthesia, medication) were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ 2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient and provider factors associated with diagnosis-related paid claims. Trends for incidence of diagnosis-related paid claims and median annual payment were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage and non-parametric trend test. Results 13 682 of 62 966 paid malpractice claims (22%) were diagnosis-related. Compared with other paid claim types, characteristics significantly associated with diagnosis-related paid claims were as follows: male patients, patient aged >50 years, provider aged <50 years and providers in the Northeast region. Compared with other paid claim types, diagnosis-related paid claims were associated with 1.83 times more risk of disability (95% CI 1.75 to 1.91; p<0.001) and 2.33 times more risk of death (95% CI 2.23 to 2.43; p<0.001) than minor injury, after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Inpatient diagnostic error accounted for $5.7 billion in payments over the study period, and median diagnosis-related payments increased at a rate disproportionate to other types. Conclusion Inpatient diagnosis-related malpractice payments are common and more often associated with disability and death than other claim types. Research focused on understanding and mitigating diagnostic errors in hospital settings is necessary.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)53-60
Number of pages8
JournalBMJ Quality and Safety
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Malpractice
Diagnostic Errors
Inpatients
Incidence
Databases
Nonparametric Statistics
Anesthesia
Logistic Models
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Malpractice claims related to diagnostic errors in the hospital. / Gupta, Ashwin; Snyder, Ashley; Kachalia, Allen; Flanders, Scott; Saint, Sanjay; Chopra, Vineet.

In: BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 53-60.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gupta, A, Snyder, A, Kachalia, A, Flanders, S, Saint, S & Chopra, V 2018, 'Malpractice claims related to diagnostic errors in the hospital', BMJ Quality and Safety, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006774
Gupta, Ashwin ; Snyder, Ashley ; Kachalia, Allen ; Flanders, Scott ; Saint, Sanjay ; Chopra, Vineet. / Malpractice claims related to diagnostic errors in the hospital. In: BMJ Quality and Safety. 2018 ; Vol. 27, No. 1. pp. 53-60.
@article{7980775e62184eb8bb4a518b94f20628,
title = "Malpractice claims related to diagnostic errors in the hospital",
abstract = "Background Little is known about the incidence or significance of diagnostic error in the inpatient setting. We used a malpractice claims database to examine incidence, predictors and consequences of diagnosis-related paid malpractice claims in hospitalised patients. Methods The US National Practitioner Database was used to identify paid malpractice claims occurring between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2011. Patient and provider characteristics associated with paid claims were analysed using descriptive statistics. Differences between diagnosis-related paid claims and other paid claim types (eg, surgical, anaesthesia, medication) were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ 2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient and provider factors associated with diagnosis-related paid claims. Trends for incidence of diagnosis-related paid claims and median annual payment were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage and non-parametric trend test. Results 13 682 of 62 966 paid malpractice claims (22{\%}) were diagnosis-related. Compared with other paid claim types, characteristics significantly associated with diagnosis-related paid claims were as follows: male patients, patient aged >50 years, provider aged <50 years and providers in the Northeast region. Compared with other paid claim types, diagnosis-related paid claims were associated with 1.83 times more risk of disability (95{\%} CI 1.75 to 1.91; p<0.001) and 2.33 times more risk of death (95{\%} CI 2.23 to 2.43; p<0.001) than minor injury, after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Inpatient diagnostic error accounted for $5.7 billion in payments over the study period, and median diagnosis-related payments increased at a rate disproportionate to other types. Conclusion Inpatient diagnosis-related malpractice payments are common and more often associated with disability and death than other claim types. Research focused on understanding and mitigating diagnostic errors in hospital settings is necessary.",
author = "Ashwin Gupta and Ashley Snyder and Allen Kachalia and Scott Flanders and Sanjay Saint and Vineet Chopra",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006774",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "53--60",
journal = "BMJ Quality and Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Malpractice claims related to diagnostic errors in the hospital

AU - Gupta, Ashwin

AU - Snyder, Ashley

AU - Kachalia, Allen

AU - Flanders, Scott

AU - Saint, Sanjay

AU - Chopra, Vineet

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background Little is known about the incidence or significance of diagnostic error in the inpatient setting. We used a malpractice claims database to examine incidence, predictors and consequences of diagnosis-related paid malpractice claims in hospitalised patients. Methods The US National Practitioner Database was used to identify paid malpractice claims occurring between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2011. Patient and provider characteristics associated with paid claims were analysed using descriptive statistics. Differences between diagnosis-related paid claims and other paid claim types (eg, surgical, anaesthesia, medication) were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ 2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient and provider factors associated with diagnosis-related paid claims. Trends for incidence of diagnosis-related paid claims and median annual payment were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage and non-parametric trend test. Results 13 682 of 62 966 paid malpractice claims (22%) were diagnosis-related. Compared with other paid claim types, characteristics significantly associated with diagnosis-related paid claims were as follows: male patients, patient aged >50 years, provider aged <50 years and providers in the Northeast region. Compared with other paid claim types, diagnosis-related paid claims were associated with 1.83 times more risk of disability (95% CI 1.75 to 1.91; p<0.001) and 2.33 times more risk of death (95% CI 2.23 to 2.43; p<0.001) than minor injury, after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Inpatient diagnostic error accounted for $5.7 billion in payments over the study period, and median diagnosis-related payments increased at a rate disproportionate to other types. Conclusion Inpatient diagnosis-related malpractice payments are common and more often associated with disability and death than other claim types. Research focused on understanding and mitigating diagnostic errors in hospital settings is necessary.

AB - Background Little is known about the incidence or significance of diagnostic error in the inpatient setting. We used a malpractice claims database to examine incidence, predictors and consequences of diagnosis-related paid malpractice claims in hospitalised patients. Methods The US National Practitioner Database was used to identify paid malpractice claims occurring between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2011. Patient and provider characteristics associated with paid claims were analysed using descriptive statistics. Differences between diagnosis-related paid claims and other paid claim types (eg, surgical, anaesthesia, medication) were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ 2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient and provider factors associated with diagnosis-related paid claims. Trends for incidence of diagnosis-related paid claims and median annual payment were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage and non-parametric trend test. Results 13 682 of 62 966 paid malpractice claims (22%) were diagnosis-related. Compared with other paid claim types, characteristics significantly associated with diagnosis-related paid claims were as follows: male patients, patient aged >50 years, provider aged <50 years and providers in the Northeast region. Compared with other paid claim types, diagnosis-related paid claims were associated with 1.83 times more risk of disability (95% CI 1.75 to 1.91; p<0.001) and 2.33 times more risk of death (95% CI 2.23 to 2.43; p<0.001) than minor injury, after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Inpatient diagnostic error accounted for $5.7 billion in payments over the study period, and median diagnosis-related payments increased at a rate disproportionate to other types. Conclusion Inpatient diagnosis-related malpractice payments are common and more often associated with disability and death than other claim types. Research focused on understanding and mitigating diagnostic errors in hospital settings is necessary.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041727052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041727052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006774

DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006774

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 53

EP - 60

JO - BMJ Quality and Safety

JF - BMJ Quality and Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - 1

ER -