Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Malpractice stress syndrome in radiologists and radiotherapists: perceived causes and consequences

II fenomeno dello stress da malpractice nei radiologi e radioterapisti. Percezione del problema e conseguenze

  • Legal Medicine Medicina Legale
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Radiology is among the specialties with an increasing risk of litigation. Regardless of the outcome of legal proceedings, physicians who are sued usually perceive the claim as an assault on their integrity and may suffer psychological or physical effects known as “malpractice stress syndrome”.

Materials and methods

Two hundred and six radiologists and 108 radiotherapists responded to a questionnaire containing specific items concerning their perception of malpractice stress and their opinions about the causes of clinical errors, as well as an assessment of work satisfaction and general health.

Results

One third of physicians had been sued for malpractice. Age was significantly related to the occurrence of malpractice litigation. Radiological errors were purportedly related to occupational discomfort, and the latter variable was significantly associated with work dissatisfaction and a low level of psychological and physical well-being.

Conclusions

Radiologists are well acquainted with medical malpractice and its causes; however, they have limited familiarity with clinical risk management practices and often ignore procedures of informed consent. A targeted educational effort is required to overcome these shortcomings.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Le denunce contro i radiologi per responsabilità civile e penale sono in continuo aumento. Indipendentemente dall’esito del processo, il medico coinvolto può andare incontro ad una serie di disturbi psicofisici che vanno sotto il nome di “stress da malpractice”. Abbiamo inteso indagare le opinioni dei radiologi sul fenomeno della malpractice medica e le esperienze di coloro che sono stati denunciati per malpractice.

Materiali e metodi

Un questionario relativo alle cause dell’errore e della malpractice ed alle sue conseguenze è stato sottoposto a 206 radiologi e 108 radioterapisti, nel corso di due congressi delle rispettive specialità.

Risultati

Mentre l’occorrenza di denunce per presunta malpractice si correla con l’età dello specialista, la frequenza degli errori sarebbe associata ad un insieme di fattori di disagio lavorativo, che a loro volta si correlano con una scarsa soddisfazione dal lavoro e un ridotto benessere psicofisico.

Conclusioni

I radiologi hanno una buona conoscenza del fenomeno della cosiddetta malpractice medica e della cause che contribuiscono ad enfatizzarlo, così come delle condizioni lavorative che causano stress da lavoro, insoddisfazione e aumento degli errori; mostrano però una insufficiente padronanza delle tecniche di clinical risk management e della dottrina del consenso informato. Per colmare tale tipo di carenza è necessario uno sforzo educativo particolare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References/Bibliografia

  1. Fileni A, Magnavita N (2006) A 12-year follow-up study of malpractice claims against radiologist in Italy. Radiol Med 111:1009–1022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Charles SC, Pyskoty CE, Nelson A (1988) Physicians on trial-self-reported reactions to malpractice trials. West J Med 148:358–360

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE et al (2005) Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists’ medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology 236:37–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS et al (2005) Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 104:491–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bassett LW, Monsees BS, Smith RA et al (2003) Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 227:862–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arnetz JE, Arnetz BB (2000) Implementation and evaluation of a practical intervention programme for dealing with violence towards health care workers. J Adv Nurs 31:668–680

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Magnavita N (1998) Violenza sul lavoro: uno specifico femminile? Atti del 61° Congresso Nazionale SIMLII, Cianciano, 1998

  8. Papalia F, Magnavita N (2003) Un rischio professionale misconosciuto: la violenza fisica sul luogo di lavoro. G Ital Med Lav Erg 25:3

    Google Scholar 

  9. Warr P, Cook J, Wall T (1979) Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. J Occup Psychol 52:129–148

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ulmer B, Harris M (2002) Australian GPs are satisfied with their job: even more so in rural areas. Family Practice 19:300–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldberg D (1972) The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford University Press

  12. Martin CR, Newell RJ (2005) The factor structure of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire in individuals with facial disfigurement. J Psychosom Res 59:193–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Armitage P, Betty G (1996) Statistica medica. Metodi statistici per la ricerca in medicina. Mc Graw Hill Italia, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  14. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM et al (2005) Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 293:2609–2617

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bartlett EE (1998) Physicians’ cognitive errors and their liability consequences. J Health Risk Manag. 18:62–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Berlin L, Hendrix RW (1998) Perceptual errors and negligence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170:863–867

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pescarini L, Inches I (2006) Systematic approach to human error in radiology Radiol Med 111:252–267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Commissione Tecnica sul Rischio Clinico (2004) Analisi dei processi di cura per attività: attività radiologica. Allegato 4A. In: Risk management in Sanità. Il problema degli errori. Ministero della Salute, Roma, pp 79–84 http://www.ministerosalute.it/programmazione/qualità/Documenti/rischio-clinico-280704.pdf

  19. Reason J (2000) Human errors: models and management. West J Med 172:393–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldberg RM, Kuhn G, Andrew LB, Thomas HA Jr (2002) Coping with medical mistakes and errors in judgment. Ann Emerg Med 39:287–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. American Psychiatric Association (2000) DSM-IV-TR. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth Revision. Text revision. APA Pub. Arlington, VA pp 429–484

  22. Riley GJ (2004) Understanding the stresses and strains of being a doctor. MJA 181:350–353

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Magnavita.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fileni, A., Magnavita, N., Mammi, F. et al. Malpractice stress syndrome in radiologists and radiotherapists: perceived causes and consequences. Radiol med 112, 1069–1084 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-007-0206-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-007-0206-9

Key words

Parole chiave

Navigation