Advertisement

Child's Nervous System

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 337–342 | Cite as

Pediatric neurosurgery malpractice claims in Germany

  • Thomas BeezEmail author
  • Hans-Jakob Steiger
  • Beate Weber
  • Sebastian Alexander Ahmadi
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

There is limited data regarding malpractice claims in pediatric neurosurgery. Aim of this study was to analyze the rate, subject, and outcome of malpractice claims faced by pediatric neurosurgeons.

Methods

We analyzed malpractice claims in pediatric neurosurgical patients assigned to the review board of North Rhine Medical Council from 2012 to 2016. Claims were categorized as “medical error” or “adverse event, no medical error.” Severity was graded from negligible (grade 1) to death (grade 6).

Results

Of 391 pediatric malpractice claims, seven (1.8%) concerned pediatric neurosurgery. Claims were related to cranial surgery (N = 5), spinal surgery (N = 1), and a neuro-interventional procedure (N = 1). Of operative cases, three were shunt operations, two were cranioplasty procedures, and one was a spinal fusion. Complications of medical care (adverse events) had occurred in all cases. A medical error was detected in only one case. Severity of damage was grade 2 (transient minor) in three, grade 3 (transient major) in one, and grade 5 (permanent major) in three cases, respectively.

Conclusions

Pediatric neurosurgery accounted for 1.8% of all pediatric malpractice claims. In 14% of these claims, a medical error was confirmed. Malpractice claim rate thus appears to be lower than expected for a high-risk specialty. , adverse events were confirmed in all cases, a negligent medical error was rare. Adverse event rate appears to be a predictor for malpractice claim burden, highlighting the importance of surgical checklists, standard operating procedures and morbidity and mortality surveillance.

Keywords

Medical error Adverse event Litigation Children 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. 1.
    Kessler DP (2011) Evaluating the medical malpractice system and options for reform. J Econ Perspect 25:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, Studdert DM (2010) National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood) 29:1569–1577.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A (2011) Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med 365:629–636.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grober ED, Bohnen JMA (2005) Defining medical error. Can J Surg 48:39–44Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drake JM, Riva-Cambrin J, Jea A, Auguste K, Tamber M, Lamberti-Pasculli M (2010) Prospective surveillance of complications in a pediatric neurosurgery unit. J Neurosurg Pediatr 5:0–544. doi:  https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.1.PEDS09305,
  6. 6.
    Campbell E, Beez T, Todd L (2017) Prospective review of 30-day morbidity and mortality in a paediatric neurosurgical unit. Childs Nerv Syst 33:483–489.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3358-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neervoort FW, Van Ouwerkerk WJR, Folkersma H et al (2010) Surgical morbidity and mortality of pediatric brain tumors: a single center audit. Childs Nerv Syst 26:1583–1592.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-010-1086-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carrier ER, Reschovsky JD, Mello MM, Mayrell RC, Katz D (2010) Physicians’ fears of malpractice lawsuits are not assuaged by tort reforms. Health Aff (Millwood) 29:1585–1592.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schaffartzik W, Neu J (2007) Injuries in anaesthesia. Results of the Hannover arbitration procedure 2001-2005. Anaesthesist 56:444–448.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-007-1170-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scheppokat KD, Neu J (2007) Medical data and quality management. Dtsch Arztebl Int 104:A-3172Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vinz H, Neu J (2009) Out of court settlement of malpractice claims relating to the treatment of fractures in children. Dtsch Arztebl Int 106:491–498.  https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2009.0491 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pukk-Härenstam K, Ask J, Brommels M et al (2008) Analysis of 23 364 patient-generated, physician-reviewed malpractice claims from a non-tort, blame-free, national patient insurance system: lessons learned from Sweden. Qual Saf Health Care 17:259–263.  https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2007.022897 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bundesärztekammer (2015) Statistische Erhebung der Gutachterkommissionen und Schlichtungsstellen für das Statistikjahr 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steiger H-J, Stummer W, Hänggi D (2010) Can systematic analysis of morbidity and mortality reduce complication rates in neurosurgery. Acta Neurochir 152:2013–2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-010-0822-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landriel Ibañez FA, Hem S, Ajler P et al A new classification of complications in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 75:709–15–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2010.11.010
  16. 16.
    Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP, Herbosa T, Joseph S, Kibatala PL, Lapitan MC, Merry AF, Moorthy K, Reznick RK, Taylor B, Gawande AA, Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group (2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 360:491–499.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0810119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Vries EN, Prins HA, Rogier M et al (2010) Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. Nejm 363:1928–1937.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Vries EN, Eikens-Jansen MP, Hamersma AM, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA (2011) Prevention of surgical malpractice claims by use of a surgical safety checklist. Ann Surg 253:624–628.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182068880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amare G (2012) Reviewing the values of a standard operating procedure. Ethiop J Health Sci 22:205–208Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nachtigall I, Tafelski S, Günzel K, Uhrig A, Powollik R, Tamarkin A, Wernecke KD, Spies C (2014) Standard operating procedures for antibiotic therapy and the occurrence of acute kidney injury: a prospective, clinical, non-interventional, observational study. Crit Care 18:R120.  https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reason J (1997) Managing the risks of organizational accidents, First Edit. Ashgate Publishing LimitedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nahed BV, Babu MA, Smith TR, Heary RF (2012) Malpractice liability and defensive medicine: a national survey of neurosurgeons. PLoS One 7:e39237.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, Russell T, Dyrbye L, Satele D, Collicott P, Novotny PJ, Sloan J, Freischlag J (2010) Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg 251:995–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bfdab3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Studdert DM (2005) Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 293:2609–2617.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.21.2609 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Medical FacultyHeinrich-Heine-UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.North Rhine Medical Council (Ärztekammer Nordrhein)DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations