Background: High reliability in health care requires a balance between intentionally designed systems and individual professional accountability. One element of accountability includes a process for addressing clinicians whose practices are associated with a disproportionate share of patient complaints. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS), a tiered intervention model to reduce patient complaints about clinicians.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving a southeastern U.S. orthopaedic group practice. The study assessed the implementation of the PARS program and subsequent malpractice claims from 2004 to 2020.

Results: The implementation of PARS was associated with an 83% reduction in malpractice claims cost per high-risk clinician after intervention (p = 0.05; Wilcoxon rank sum test). The overall practice group experienced an 87% reduction in mean annual claims cost per clinician (p = 0.007; segmented regression). The successful adoption required essential elements such as PARS champions, peer messengers, an Office of Patient Affairs, and a clear statement of practice values and professionalism expectations at the time of onboarding.

Conclusions: The PARS program was successfully adopted within a surgical specialty group as a part of ongoing risk prevention and management efforts. The period following PARS was associated with a retrospectively measured reduction in malpractice claim costs. The PARS program can be effectively implemented in a large, single-specialty orthopaedic practice setting and, although not necessarily causal, was, in our case, associated with a period of reduced malpractice claim costs.

Clinical Relevance: We have learned in previous research that there are clear links between professionalism and patient outcomes (e.g., surgical complications), but agree that the focus here on medical malpractice is not directly clinical.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11608583PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.00973DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

malpractice claims
12
pars program
12
orthopaedic practice
8
patient complaints
8
implementation pars
8
pars associated
8
reduction malpractice
8
claims cost
8
malpractice claim
8
pars
7

Similar Publications

The great advances in diagnostic and therapeutic skills of most sectors of medicine and dentistry have led to an increasingly greater demand from patients for accuracy, attention and diligence by healthcare workers. Dentistry is one of the branches most frequently involved in claims for damages from malpractice, especially in those sectors that are particularly costly and of significant aesthetic value. Aim of the study was to compare data of malpractice claims with those of other Authors to identify similarities and/or differences in the results and to increase epidemiological knowledge in the area of dental malpractice.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Professional liability and litigation in dental medicine: an analysis of the Portuguese context.

J Forensic Odontostomatol

December 2024

Faculdade de Medicina Dentária da Universidade do Porto.

Article Synopsis
  • Dentists are regulated by a Deontological Code that outlines their professional duties and obligations, which are essential in the legal relationship with patients concerning treatment agreements.
  • The study aimed to analyze court decisions in Portugal relating to dentists and patient claims, focusing on various factors like patient demographics, type of liability, and outcome of the claims.
  • A survey of judgments from multiple Portuguese Superior Courts was conducted, including a summary of the legal context and decisions that emerged regarding dental practice.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Just like in other medical specialties, medical malpractice claims arise in pathology as well. Although the exact rate of malpractice related to pathology cannot be clearly stated in Turkey, it is known to occur more frequently during the diagnosis stage, as reported worldwide. This study discusses the measures that should be taken to prevent these claims by comparing cases with alleged malpractice in pathology, evaluated by the Council of Forensic Medicine, with the literature.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: Limited research exists regarding malpractice in dentistry. Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) include intra- and extra-articular conditions that are managed by general dentists, orofacial pain specialists, and oral and maxillofacial surgeons. In this study, we investigate the rate of malpractice court trials involving treatment of TMD by these specialists.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: The aim of this study was to examine cases of malpractice litigation in primary sarcoma and metastatic bone disease in orthopedic oncology, to identify the areas in which orthopedic surgeons may be guilty of negligence, and to make them aware of this.

Methods: A comprehensive examination was conducted on all closed medical malpractice cases involving bone and soft tissue malignant tumors from 2014 to 2024. Patient demographics, histopathological diagnosis, and malpractice claims made in a variety of specialties were recorded.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!