A clinical analysis of 500 medico-legal claims evaluating the causes and assessing the potential benefit of alternative dispute resolution.
To evaluate the common causes of medico-legal dispute in obstetrics and gynaecology. 2. To assess the potential benefit of early alternative dispute resolution.
Design A prospective analysis of over 500 cases submitted from over 100 solicitors between 1984 and 1994 for medical expert opinion on potential medico-legal claims.
Cases Five hundred consecutive cases that met the inclusion criteria : 488 from the United Kingdom and 12 from abroad (Hong Kong, Republic of Ireland).
Main outcome measures The main principles underlining medico-legal disputes and causes of such claims Results Analysis of 500 claims show 46% were misguided allegations, 19% incompetent care, 12% error of judgement, 9% lack of expertise, 7% failure of communication, 6% poor supervision and 1% inadequate staffing.
Of the misguided allegations 119/225 cases (59%) were obstetric and 111/275 (40%) cases were gynaecological.
The most common cause of obstetric dispute was'cerebral palsy' (22%), while the commonest cause of gynaecological dispute was failed sterilisation (19%). Settled claims were under-reported by solicitors.
Conclusion Because of the high percentage (46%) of misguided allegations, an alternative course of dispute resolution must be a realistic way forward.
This course of action, combined with improved communication, could result in a major reduction in the costs of potential medical litigation. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Expertise médicolégale, Gynécologie, Obstétrique, Cause, Réclamation, Procès, Résolution problème, Analyse statistique, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Medicolegal expertise, Gynecology, Obstetrics, Cause, Protest, Trial, Problem solving, Statistical analysis, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 97-0064634
Code Inist : 002B30A10. Création : 21/05/1997.