Office Practice Risk Management

Chapter

Abstract

Risk management can be viewed as preventative, and medical malpractice can be viewed as compensatory once an adverse event has occurred. Unfortunately, risk management has come to mean an attempt to avoid medical malpractice lawsuits. That is an unrealistic goal on its face and misses the real value of risk management. Risk management and medical malpractice center on undesired outcomes in the delivery of healthcare. Some undesired outcomes occur by the very nature of chance and illness, which make them unavoidable. Other undesired outcomes result from preventable causes. Risk management focuses on limiting the occurrence of preventable undesired outcomes. Medical malpractice, while ostensibly existing to compensate monetarily for negligent outcomes, acts as a means of attempting to derive compensation for both avoidable and unavoidable undesired outcomes. A more equitable system could be achieved if there was a means of compensating injured parties where the injury was from unavoidable undesired outcomes and medical malpractice was reserved for those situations where true negligence exists. That seems highly unlike to occur anytime soon, if ever, so today’s physician must deal with the system as it exists today.

Keywords

Office medicolegal liability Risk reduction Mandatory reporting requirements Office practice risk management Medical malpractice Medical errors 

References

  1. 1.
    Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. NEJM. 2011;365:629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson M, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDonald CJ, Weiner M, Hui SL. Deaths due to medical errors are exaggerated in the Institute of Medicine report. JAMA. 2000;284:93–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leape LL. Institute of medicine medical error figures are not exaggerated. JAMA. 2000;284:95–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kane CK. Medical liability claim frequency: a 2007–2008 snapshot of physicians AMA 2010: policy research perspectives.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gluck PA. Medical error theory. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2008;35:11–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Beuzekom M, Boer F, Akerboom S, Hudson P. Patient safety: latent risk factors. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saxena K, Lung BR, Becker JR. Improving patient safety by modifying provider ordering behavior using alerts (COSS) in CPOE system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011:1207–16.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dain S. Normal accidents: human error and medical equipment design. Heart Surg Forum. 2002;5:254–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Id. at 780.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Id. at 787.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Id. at 790.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rozovsky FA. Consent to treatment: a practical guide. In: Rozovsky FA, editor. $th Ed/Wolters Kluwer Austin. 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Fertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyNorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityPritzker School of Medicine, University of ChicagoEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations