Browsing by Subject "Malpractice"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A survey-based study of wrong-level lumbar spine surgery: the scope of the problem and current practices in place to help avoid these errors.
    (World neurosurgery, 2013-03) Groff, Michael W; Heller, Joshua E; Potts, Eric A; Mummaneni, Praveen V; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Smith, Justin S

    Objective

    To understand better the scope of wrong-level lumbar spine surgery and current practices in place to help avoid such errors.

    Methods

    The Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves (Spine Section) developed a survey on single-level lumbar spine decompression surgery. Invitations to complete the Web-based survey were sent to all Spine Section members. Respondents were assured of confidentiality.

    Results

    There were 569 responses from 1045 requests (54%). Most surgeons either routinely (74%) or sometimes (11%) obtain preoperative imaging for incision planning. Most surgeons indicated that they obtained imaging after the incision was performed for localization either routinely before bone removal (73%) or most frequently before bone removal but occasionally after (16%). Almost 50% of reporting surgeons have performed wrong-level lumbar spine surgery at least once, and >10% have performed wrong-side lumbar spine surgery at least once. Nearly 20% of responding surgeons have been the subject of at least one malpractice case relating to these errors. Only 40% of respondents believed that the site marking/"time out" protocol of The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has led to a reduction in these errors.

    Conclusions

    There is substantial heterogeneity in approaches used to localize operative levels in the lumbar spine. Existing safety protocols may not be mitigating wrong-level surgery to the extent previously thought.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Equity and accuracy in medical malpractice insurance pricing.
    (J Health Econ, 1990-11) Sloan, FA; Hassan, M
    This study examines alternative classification approaches for setting medical malpractice insurance premiums. Insurers generally form risk classification categories on factors other than the physician's own loss experience. Our analysis of such classification approaches indicates different but no more categories than now used. An actuarially-fair premium-setting scheme based on the frequency and severity of the individual physician's losses would substantially penalize adverse experience. Alternatively, premiums could be set for groups of physicians, such as hospital medical staffs. Our simulations suggest that even staffs at rather small hospitals may be large enough to be experience-rated.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The medicolegal impact of misplaced pedicle and lateral mass screws on spine surgery in the United States.
    (Neurosurgical focus, 2020-11) Sankey, Eric W; Mehta, Vikram A; Wang, Timothy Y; Than, Tracey T; Goodwin, C Rory; Karikari, Isaac O; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Abd-El-Barr, Muhammad M; Than, Khoi D
    Spine surgery has been disproportionately impacted by medical liability and malpractice litigation, with the majority of claims and payouts related to procedural error. One common area for the potential avoidance of malpractice claims and subsequent payouts involves misplaced pedicle and/or lateral mass instrumentation. However, the medicolegal impact of misplaced screws on spine surgery has not been directly reported in the literature. The authors of the current study aimed to describe this impact in the United States, as well as to suggest a potential method for mitigating the problem.This retrospective analysis of 68 closed medicolegal cases related to misplaced screws in spine surgery showed that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons were equally named as the defendant (n = 32 and 31, respectively), and cases were most commonly due to misplaced lumbar pedicle screws (n = 41, 60.3%). Litigation resulted in average payouts of $1,204,422 ± $753,832 between 1995 and 2019, when adjusted for inflation. The median time to case closure was 56.3 (35.2-67.2) months when ruled in favor of the plaintiff (i.e., patient) compared to 61.5 (51.4-77.2) months for defendant (surgeon) verdicts (p = 0.117).