Characterization of medical malpractice claims against obstetricians affiliated to FEPASDE in Colombia 1999-2014: historic cohort

  • Jorge Medina-Parra Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Javier Eslava-Schmalbach a. Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. b. Hospital Universitario Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Gloria Jiménez Medical Counselling, Sociedad Colombiana de Anestesiología y Reanimación (S.C.A.R.E.), Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Luisa Montoya Research Division, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud (FUCS), Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Iván Cediel-Carrillo Legal Coordination Bureau, Sociedad Colombiana de Anestesiología y Reanimación (S.C.A.R.E.), Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Hernando Gaitán-Duarte a. Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. b. Hospital Universitario Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
Keywords: Obstetrics, Forensic Medicine; Liability, Legal, Administrative Claims, Healthcare, Legal Process

Abstract

Introduction:

Medical malpractice claims have been increasing at a constant rate worldwide, resulting in a burden for practitioners as well as for the health system. In obstetrics, the problem is even greater considering that it is one of the medical specialties with the largest number of medical malpractice suits.

Objective:

To characterize medical malpractice claims in the area of obstetrics in Colombia from the perspectives of the physician, the patient, the institution, the medical care provided, and the legal proceeding.

Materials and methods:

Historical descriptive cohort of closed medical malpractice cases between 1999 and 2014 filed against obstetricians affiliated to a special solidarity fund for support in lawsuit cases. Simple random sampling (n = 279) in a universe of 982 proceedings. Variables related to the proceeding, the obstetrician, the institution, medical care, and the patient were measured.

Results:

The most frequent lawsuits were related to ethics (44.4%). The proportion of unfavorable rulings was 7.7%, more frequently in civil cases (31.8%). The prevalence of lawsuits was higher in private institutions (60%). The majority of the cases were related to patients in the second half of the gestation period (86%). In 74.7% of the cases, legal action was initiated as a result of events occurring during childbirth. The most frequent cause was neonatal compromise (38.9%), followed by fetal compromise (24.7%).

Conclusion:

Care during childbirth, fetal, and neonatal demise are critical sources of medical malpractice claims.

References

1. López Ordoñez MA, Manrique Bacca I, García Torres C. Lawsuits against practitioners, comments about cases. Rev Col Gastroenterol 2004; 19:37-43.

2. Restrepo Manotas J. An overview of the disciplinary ethics and the administrative investigation. The courts of Medical ethics and the Medical care. Monitor Estratégico Superintendencia Nacional de Salud 2012; 1:4-8.

3. Fepasde [Internet]. Tipos de Procesos. [Citado November 1, 2017]. Available at: https://scare.org.co/portal-afiliados/mi-fepasde/36-fepasde/39-tipos-de-procesos.html.

4. Procuraduría General de la Nación [Internet]. Proceso Disciplinario. [Citado November 1, 2017]. Available at: https://www.procuraduria.gov.co/guiamp/proceso-disciplinario.page.

5. Markides GA, Newman CM. Medical malpractice claims in relation to colorectal malignancy in the National Health Service. Colorectal Dis 2014; 16:48-56.

6. Uphoff R, Hindemith J. Die zivilrechtliche Haftung des Geburtshelfers (the civil liability of obstetricians). Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2011; 215:223-229.

7. Soergel P, Schöffski O, Hillemanns P, et al. Increasing liability premiums in obstetrics - analysis, effects and options. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015; 75:367-376.

8. Ramírez AM, Ramírez SC, Larios EKO. Medical malpractice stress syndrome. Revista CONAMED 2016; 21:1.

9. Pellino IM, Pellino G. Consequences of defensive medicine, second victims, and clinical-judicial syndrome on surgeons’ medical practice and on health service. Updates Surg 2015; 67:331-337.

10. Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, et al. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:629-636.

11. Huycke LI, Huycke MM. Characteristics of potential plaintiffs in malpractice litigation. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120:792-798.

12. Neupauer R. Medical malpractice trend review. 2014; The Risk Authority, Palo Alto California. [Cited 1 Nov 17]. Available at: http://theriskauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-Medical-Malpractice-Trend-Review.pdf.

13. Hale RW. Legal issues impacting women’s access to care in the United States-the malpractice insurance crisis. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006; 94:382-385.

14. Sandoval G, Carolina D. A few questions about medical liability. Rev Colomb Anestesiol 2012; 40:131-133.

15. Sakala C, YangYT, Corry MP. Maternity care and liability: pressing problems, substantive solutions. Womens Health Issues 2013; 23:e13.

16. Cohen WR, Schifrin BS. Medical negligence lawsuits relating to labor and delivery. Clin Perinatol 2007; 34:345-360.

17. Lambert BL, Centomani NM, Smith KM, et al. The “Seven Pillars” response to patient safety incidents: effects on medical liability processes and outcomes. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 (S3):2491-2515.

18. Bocanegra-Rivera JC, Arias-Botero JH. Characterization and analysis of adverse events in closed liability cases involving anaesthetists who received legal support from the Colombian Society of Anaesthesia and Resuscitation (S.C.A.R.E.), Colombia, 1993-2012. Rev Colomb Anestesiol 2016; 44:203-210.

19. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:2024-2033.

20. Barbieri RL. Professional liability payments in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:578-581.

21. Mello MM, Studdert DM, Kachalia A. The medical liability climate and prospects for reform. JAMA 2014; 312:2146-2155.

22. Särndal CE, Swensson B, Wretman J. Model assisted survey sampling. 1st ed.1992; Springer, New York:695.

23. Gómez-Durán EL, Mula-Rosías JA, Lailla-Vicens JM, et al. Analysis of obstetrics and gynecology professional liability claims in Catalonia, Spain (1986-2010). J Forensic Leg Med 2013; 20:442-446.

24. Arévalo D, Cárdenas R, Fresneda O, et al. Ha mejorado el acceso en salud?: Evaluación de los procesos del régimen subsidiado. Ministerio de la Protección Social. 2007; Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá:629.

25. Domingues AP, Moura P, Vieira DN. Lessons from a decade of technical-scientific opinions in obstetrical litigation. J Forensic Leg Med 2014; 25:91-94.
How to Cite
1.
Medina-Parra J, Eslava-Schmalbach J, Jiménez G, Montoya L, Cediel-Carrillo I, Gaitán-Duarte H. Characterization of medical malpractice claims against obstetricians affiliated to FEPASDE in Colombia 1999-2014: historic cohort. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2018Apr.1 [cited 2021Mar.2];46(2):112-8. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/192

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2018-04-01
How to Cite
1.
Medina-Parra J, Eslava-Schmalbach J, Jiménez G, Montoya L, Cediel-Carrillo I, Gaitán-Duarte H. Characterization of medical malpractice claims against obstetricians affiliated to FEPASDE in Colombia 1999-2014: historic cohort. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. [Internet]. 2018Apr.1 [cited 2021Mar.2];46(2):112-8. Available from: https://www.revcolanest.com.co/index.php/rca/article/view/192
Section
Original

More on this topic

Most read articles by the same author(s)