What do you think?

Defensive medicine seeping into physician training
False
General clinical
Defensive medicine seeping into physician training
Discuss any specialty in this open forum for all healthcare professionals
Defensive medicine is seeping into Doctors’ training, according to a survey published earlier this year. Most students and residents at one medical school state they witness the practice in cli
0
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:GeneralClinical
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:GeneralClinicalDiscussion:5c8f8c29-7477-485c-8561-7dfb62f7464a

Forums » Open clinical » General clinical » Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register
 
Forums  »  Open clinical  »  General clinical  »  Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 19/10/2012 1:39 PM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 958
First: 15/7/2011
Last: 15/5/2013
Defensive medicine is seeping into Doctors’ training, according to a survey published earlier this year. Most students and residents at one medical school state they witness the practice in clinical training. They are taught to factor medical liability into patient-care decisions. Practicing defensive medicine to avoid medical liability lawsuits may not be a formal part of medical school curriculum, but it's still being taught to medical students and residents.
A survey of 202 fourth-year medical students and third-year residents at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago found that 94% of students and 96% of residents have seen examples of  defensive medicine in practice.

Nearly two-thirds of students and three-quarters of residents said their attending physician implied that they take medical liability concerns into consideration when making clinical decisions. Nearly half of respondents said their seniors directly instructed them to do so, says the study in the Academic Medicine Journal  (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22189882/).

Educators should reframe such conversations to focus on reducing liability risk by improving patient safety and communication, said Kevin O'Leary, MD, lead study author and associate professor and associate chief of Northwestern's Division of Hospital Medicine.
"At its core, medical malpractice is about preventable injury to patients," he said. "I think we lose track of that and focus on the potential risk to ourselves when we should focus on the potential risk to our patients. We can help trainees with clinical decision-making without having to rely on medical liability as the motivation."

The nationwide costs (in the USA) of defensive medicine have been conservatively estimated at $45.6 billion per year, according to a September 2010 Health Affairs study.(content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/9/1569/).  

The Academic Medicine study found that assurance behaviors -- when physicians provide additional services that are of little clinical value to the patient -- are particularly common. Ninety-two percent of students and 96% of residents witnessed such behaviors, while only 34% of students and 43% of residents saw physicians avoid providing services to patients for fear of medical liability risk. Half of medical students and 67% of residents said they witnessed a medical error that resulted in harm to a patient. About 70% of these respondents said the errors were disclosed to patients or their families. Dr O'Leary said it was discouraging that about 30% of respondents who witnessed harmful medical errors said the mistakes were not disclosed. Disclosing errors is difficult, but it is a professional obligation, and most hospitals have supporting staff to help physicians through the process. "It is really a difficult conversation that most medical providers haven't had much training in," he said.

A limitation of the study is that it focuses on a single institution. But Dr. O'Leary said he is confident defensive medicine is prevalent at most academic medical centres. More emphasis should be placed on aligning clinical training with medical school curricula. "Our goal is that while the formal curriculum is being expanded to include patient safety, that we also take into account the clinical training," he said.

I am particularly interested in Defensive Medicine and do recognise that many  healthcare professionals  perception is that we are becoming more like the United States where patients suing their Doctor is much more common.  In terms of medical negligence in the UK it is very difficult for a plaintiff to successfully sue a hospital trust or Doctor and whilst the number of legal actions against Doctors has dramatically increased over the last 3 decades, the number of plaintiffs that actually win is not a great deal higher than the 1950s. Doctors and Nurses are forever saying 'I must cover my back'. My reply to that is for them to remember that good medicine is good law and provided they undertake their duties in accordance with accepted standards and keep medical notes of a high standard they are unlikely to have major problems.

 

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 19/10/2012 2:14 PM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 1258
First: 13/4/2010
Last: 18/5/2013
Bottom line Kirked is that patients and their lawyers are responsible for the growth of defensive medicine and the care of patients will be worse as a consequence but the public have no-one to blame but themselves. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 19/10/2012 3:50 PM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 134
First: 25/5/2011
Last: 17/5/2013
Every night when I drive home I hear adverts encouraging people to see if they are eligible for "compensation" due to medical errors and later that night I have to sit through similar adverts on television. Medical defence organisations regularly send out magazines with case studies and dire warnings and I have to regularly attend training which emphasises the importance of documentation in the event of a complaint.

Practising under siege conditions and surrounded by people watching and waiting to seize upon any error leaves little room for either risk-taking or relaxation when working. Having been sure of something formerly, one is now encouraged to ask, "Are you sure that you are sure?". If not, you may fall into a trap and an unscrupulous hoarde of persecutors, driven by a frenzy of greed, will be unleashed upon you and not cease to pursue you until sated by money, with no care for the incidental damage to your life. Money is the only measure used by which the degree of your failure will be judged. Justice is irrelevant. The family who gains an apology, gets told that they were right and given £50 will be less happy than those who receive £50,000 and are asked to drop the charges with no blame attached.

I once lost eighteen months of restful sleep to a spurious claim and learned infuriatingly in the process that, to the other players in this drama, it was all only a game. One of many cases to the solicitor, a source of private income to the report writers and the dream of wealth for the claimant. An impersonal cause for most of them, but deeply personal to me. I would bet that all these years on, I'm the only professional who can still quote all the details. How can this not change how things are done? It is a reality of modern practice and the students may as well know about it from the beginning of their training.

Skysteve has clearly and correctly identified the originators of this most unwelcome development.

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 20/10/2012 10:34 AM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 958
First: 15/7/2011
Last: 15/5/2013
 I agree very much with both skysteve and Adrians posts. It is unedifying to see these 'ambulance chasing' lawyers touting for patients who have been harmed and being given the impression that they are all set to receive large sums of money.  I do not defend such lawyers behaviour in any way because their aim is purely to win very large fees from succesful claims, but one must remember an important factor.  Up until the 1980s, when Doctors made mistakes they simply told no-one, closed ranks and there was virtually nothing a genuine claimant could do.  The only way that patients or relatives could find out exactly what happened  was to consult a Solicitor who would ensure that the matter could be fully investigated.  Doctors of that era must take some blame, they expected patients to do as they were told and if a person suffered through negligence it was just too bad.  These times have changed and the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.  Still howeve,r Doctors very often make matters worse by being less than frank with patients.  On this site I frequently harp on about good communication and high standards of medical notes - it is the thread that runs through just about every claim of negligence against Doctors.   I represent only Doctors and Nurses and still on occasion am dismayed at the illegible, irrelevant and paucity of notes that some Doctors make. 

In the United States many lawyers think that defensive medicine is a perfectly sensible way to proceed because it makes Doctors do tests or procedures to rule out potential problems and surely this is just  'thorough medicine'.  I do not subscribe to that view.  Undertaking tests that are very unlikely to add anything  further to assist the Doctor is not only expensive but can carry risks in themselves e.g. unnecessary exposure to radiation. 

I want to emphasise one very important point.  Contrary to what one may read in newspapers it is very difficult to win a claim of medical negligence, furthermore although we hear of claims where patients have received millions of pounds in compensation  these are the exception and almost always are about asphyxia of a baby during birth.  The great majority of claims of medical negligence do not succeed.  Any claim that gets through the first two hurdles (1. establishing a duty of care 2. Doctor has breached the duty of care) fail at the third hurdle  ( 3. the harm the patient suffered was as a result of the Doctors' failure to meet that duty of care). Also pursuing a claim on average takes 7 years to resolve in a court - frequently it is longer.  It is also very expensive.  That is why legal firms only take on claims that they feel are likely to succeed.  There are many people with genuine medical negligence claims that simply have nowhere near enough money to pursue a claim. 

Important  points for Doctors

When writing medical notes always keep in mind that the patient can read their notes and that they could one day be open to legal scrutiny.   Accurately record information in the notes that you have given to the patient.  If a claim is made several years after a Doctors interventions your only recollection is likely to be what you wrote in the notes.  I have had many cases where Doctors have had no defence to a claim because the notes are either illegible, irrelevant or missing. 

Finally Adrian your comments about justice.  There are certainly vexatious claims and lawyers often treat claims as a game.  It is curious how lawyers encourage people to start legal claims but noticeable how rarely lawyers utilise the law for themselves.  They know full well it is expensive, time consuming and stressfull and they usually don't go near it with a barge pole but are quite happy to encourage others to take legal action.  As I stated in the original post doctors should keep their focus on providing good medical care, if they do that there is no reason why they should encounter major legal problems.  Vexatious claims will always occur but if they have no merit they will get nowhere. 

 

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 20/10/2012 1:34 PM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 3037
First: 27/3/2012
Last: 18/5/2013
I do agree respected Kirked that good medicine is good law and provided we undertake our duties in accordance with accepted standards and keep medical notes of a high standard, we are unlikely to have major problems.
Doctors practice defensive medicine out of fear of being sued, and patients are paying the price  with their life, in some cases. Defensive medicine has become the standard of care, thanks to trial lawyers who have blurred the lines between malpractice and “mal-occurrence,” and the effects are not only costly in terms of money, they may also be costing patients their lives.
I feel sorry that nowadays, defensive medicine is the practice of diagnostic or therapeutic measures conducted primarily not to ensure the health of the patient, but as a safeguard against possible malpractice liability. This could be better avoided by our genuine & non commercial clinical practice.

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 20/10/2012 3:22 PM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 577
First: 8/6/2011
Last: 18/5/2013
We are living in difficult times for princes respected Dr Ashutosh...
 Insurance companies-lawyers- and individuals who would sue and their own mother for 50 $ :
  All of them form a nice industry of making easy money on the backs of doctors and of course of the citizens  who  pay their salary.

 Otherwise we are in times of economic austerity...

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 20/10/2012 4:15 PM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 2034
First: 12/3/2010
Last: 17/5/2013
But even the most defensive, or should I say defensible, cases can end with the plaintiff profiting.

I broke a patients tooth, trying to intubate them.  I knew their single upper incisor was held on by a thread of dentine, and that the gold crown alongside was glued to that;  I had told the patient about the risk and noted that their shape and size (124kgs, 5ft 9ins, BMI 42) would make them a difficult intubation.  Sure enough, it snapped.   I got immediate, under anaesthesia, assistance from the Dental dept. to repair it but to no avail.  I spoke to and apologised to the patient 12 and 24hours later. "No prob's, Doc!  I knew it was on its last legs."

Twelve months later, solicitor's letter, claiming £14,000 in damages, but if settled immediately, they would be satisfied with £9,000.  NINE THOUSAND POUNDS!  For a tooth!

The Trust solicitors told me that the first sum was intended to frighten, and the second to be less than the court costs and the other side's legal expences, to encourage settlement.   Although both I and my Defence Union pointed out to the Trust that there was excellent evidence in our favour, I think - they never told me - that the Trust settled out of court, becasue it was cheaper.   Never mind my reputation, or that Mrs.Jones would have wait another month for her hip replacement, as the Trust had spent the money.
    Now that has to be blackmail, extortion, demand with menaces, not a legal process to achieve reasonable reimbursement of a plaintiff's lot.  But apparently not.

John

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 21/10/2012 12:05 AM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 577
First: 8/6/2011
Last: 18/5/2013
 In this situations it is important to see the route  of money.  From whose pocket are leaving and to whose pocket are going.  Money are leaving from the doctor's pockets to pay the insurance companies. Although the state is the first one who gives the money to the doctors with the salary.  So the money leaves from the state fund and arrives to insurance companies. ( Doctor is the unlucky mediator in this situation ) . This are money which are paid effectively for nothing.  A wise legislator would eliminate the financial compensation. 
 
 The man with the broken teeth is probably a poor  , being in need for money . The lawyer  explained to him that the insurance company will pay. The company paid the money that  is nothing in front of its overal profits,  and that's all...

 In my eyes these cases JohnD is something like the '' delirium symptoms " of a system which sooner or later will collapse. And then types like him will not have the money for lawyers to protect them nor for doctors to treat them.

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 21/10/2012 10:02 AM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 958
First: 15/7/2011
Last: 15/5/2013
In Response to Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training:
But even the most defensive, or should I say defensible, cases can end with the plaintiff profiting. I broke a patients tooth, trying to intubate them.  I knew their single upper incisor was held on by a thread of dentine, and that the gold crown alongside was glued to that;  I had told the patient about the risk and noted that their shape and size (124kgs, 5ft 9ins, BMI 42) would make them a difficult intubation.  Sure enough, it snapped.   I got immediate, under anaesthesia, assistance from the Dental dept. to repair it but to no avail.  I spoke to and apologised to the patient 12 and 24hours later. "No prob's, Doc!  I knew it was on its last legs." Twelve months later, solicitor's letter, claiming £14,000 in damages, but if settled immediately, they would be satisfied with £9,000.  NINE THOUSAND POUNDS!  For a tooth! The Trust solicitors told me that the first sum was intended to frighten, and the second to be less than the court costs and the other side's legal expences, to encourage settlement.   Although both I and my Defence Union pointed out to the Trust that there was excellent evidence in our favour, I think - they never told me - that the Trust settled out of court, becasue it was cheaper.   Never mind my reputation, or that Mrs.Jones would have wait another month for her hip replacement, as the Trust had spent the money.     Now that has to be blackmail, extortion, demand with menaces, not a legal process to achieve reasonable reimbursement of a plaintiff's lot.  But apparently not. John
Posted by John D


John I sympathise with the situation you had. Trusts all too frequently will make a payment of several thousand pounds to the claimant simply to make him go away.  Its purpose is damage limitation - pay out a sum of money rather than have the case tried in court which will be time consuming and expensive.  The offensive aspect of such a course of action is that the Doctors reputation counts for nothing. He may have acted perfectly professionally but the trust really doesn't care about that.  I am curious in the example you gave if your defence organisation was involved.  The major defence organisations should be giving you legal support to protect your actions and your good name - if they don't do that then why are Doctors paying them thousands of pounds each year for that purpose?.

Re: Defensive medicine seeping into physician training

posted at 21/10/2012 10:27 AM BST on bmj.com
Posts: 2034
First: 12/3/2010
Last: 17/5/2013
Maybe I was remiss, kirked.  I asked my defense org for their opinion, and on the basis of the record they felt it was defensible, so I told the Trust that.  I never heard anything more, and maybe I should have demanded more information, but time passes and one is busy.

ikaros, the NHS provides medicolegal cover for all its employees, by joining a consortium of Trusts that set certain standards of care and obtain cover through the insurance market.    Damages are paid by the insurers of the consortium, so I was not correct in saying that my Trust wasted the pay-off money, as they had already budgeted for a premium payment to the insurers.  But those premiums are very large indeed, and my case is a small example of why they are large.
As I am in private practice as well, I have cover for myself from a defence org. which I consulted in this case, and whose staff were glad to provide advice, but felt that as it was an NHS case, they would only become involved if my reputation was at risk.     Maybe I should be grateful that it wasn't threatened and that the NHS's pay-ff defended it,but the criminal threat of a ransom demand (Libel, kirked?) still rankles.
John

Forums » Open clinical » General clinical » Defensive medicine seeping into physician training