Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify physician predictors in laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) surgery that correlate with a higher risk for malpractice liability claims and lawsuits. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study comparing physician characteristics of 100 consecutive Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company (OMIC) LASIK and PRK claims and suits to demographic and practice pattern data for all active refractive surgeons insured by OMIC between 1996 and 2002. Background information and data were obtained from OMIC underwriting applications, a physician practice pattern survey, and claims file records. Using an outcome of whether or not a physician had a prior history of a claim or suit, logistic regression analyses were used separately for each predictor as well as controlling for refractive surgery volume. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the most important predictor of filing a claim was surgical volume, with those performing more surgery having a greater risk of incurring a claim (odds ratio [OR], 31.4 for >1,000/year versus 0 to 20/year; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9 - 125; P = .0001). Having one or more prior claims was the only other predictor examined that remained statistically significant after controlling for patient volume (OR, 6.4; 95% CI 2.5 - 16.4; P = .0001). Physician gender, advertising, preoperative time spent with patient, and comanagement appeared to be strong predictors in multivariate analyses when surgical volume was greater than 100 cases per year. CONCLUSION: The chances of incurring a malpractice claim or suit for PRK or LASIK correlates significantly with higher surgical volume and a history of a prior claim or suit. Additional risk factors that increase in importance with higher surgical volume include gender, advertising, preoperative time spent with patient, and comanagement with optometrists. These findings may be used in the future to help improve the quality of care for patients undergoing refractive surgery and provide data for underwriting criteria and risk management protocols to proactively manage and reduce the risk of claims and lawsuits against refractive surgeons.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (526.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Arnold Theresa. The informed consent doctrine. A defined responsibility. N J Med. 2002 Apr;99(4):24–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beckman H. B., Markakis K. M., Suchman A. L., Frankel R. M. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994 Jun 27;154(12):1365–1370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bovbjerg R. R., Petronis K. R. The relationship between physicians' malpractice claims history and later claims. Does the past predict the future? JAMA. 1994 Nov 9;272(18):1421–1426. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bunting R. F., Jr, Benton J., Morgan W. D. Practical risk management principles for physicians. J Healthc Risk Manag. 1998 Fall;18(4):29–53. doi: 10.1002/jhrm.5600180405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Finkelstein D., Smith M. K., Faden R. Informed consent and medical ethics. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993 Mar;111(3):324–326. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090030042034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gold J. A. Informed consent. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993 Mar;111(3):321–323. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090030039033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gordon V. M. The origin, basis and nature of medical malpractice liability. Conn Med. 1971 Feb;35(2):73–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hickson Gerald B., Federspiel Charles F., Pichert James W., Miller Cynthia S., Gauld-Jaeger Jean, Bost Preston. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA. 2002 Jun 12;287(22):2951–2957. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.22.2951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levinson W., Roter D. L., Mullooly J. P., Dull V. T., Frankel R. M. Physician-patient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997 Feb 19;277(7):553–559. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.7.553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meyers D. Reducing physician vulnerability to professional liability claims: what practices make a difference? J Med Pract Manage. 2001 Jan-Feb;16(4):206–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sloan F. A., Mergenhagen P. M., Burfield W. B., Bovbjerg R. R., Hassan M. Medical malpractice experience of physicians. Predictable or haphazard? JAMA. 1989 Dec 15;262(23):3291–3297. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spicer Janet. Professional liability insurance. I. A historical perspective. N J Med. 2002 Apr;99(4 Suppl):19–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vincent C., Young M., Phillips A. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action. Lancet. 1994 Jun 25;343(8913):1609–1613. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)93062-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Virshup B. B., Oppenberg A. A., Coleman M. M. Strategic risk management: reducing malpractice claims through more effective patient-doctor communication. Am J Med Qual. 1999 Jul-Aug;14(4):153–159. doi: 10.1177/106286069901400402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yo C., Vroman C., Ma S., Chao L., McDonnell P. J. Surgical outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis by inexperienced surgeons. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000 Apr;26(4):510–515. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00468-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ziegenfuss James T., Jr Medical malpractice and quality: an interconnected problem. Am J Med Qual. 2002 May-Jun;17(3):83–85. doi: 10.1177/106286060201700301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]