research paper on professional negligence

The Laws of Professional Negligence: What Is Malpractice – And How Does Litigation Work?

First Online: 03 April 2021

Cite this chapter

research paper on professional negligence

James E. Szalados 2 , 3

838 Accesses

Medical malpractice is an increasingly generic term to describe professional negligence that occurs in the course of medical care. Whereas traditionally, allegations of medical malpractice were almost always directed at physicians, medical groups, or hospitals, the causes of action based in medical malpractice are now regularly and increasingly addressed to advance practice providers, such as physician assistants, nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives, as well as pharmacists and other allied health professionals. The process of litigation, the applicable standards of care, the various potential applicable legal doctrines, and the calculation of damages are fundamental to the litigation process. This topic is further addressed in Chap. 5 .

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Medical Law Aspects: Germany

Malpractice

Federal Tort Claims Act (August 2, 1946, ch.646, Title IV, 60 Stat. 812, 28 U.S.C. Part VI, Chapter 171 and 28 U.S.C. § 1346).

Google Scholar

Negligence. Legal information institute. Cornell Law School. Online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence . Verified October 11, 2020.

W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5 th Ed. 1984) § 53, p. 358. See also, Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399, 405 (1997) (“the threshold inquiry has always been whether the specific harm alleged by the plaintiff was foreseeable to the defendant”).

Foss v. Kincade, 766 N.W.2d 317, 322 (Minn. 2009) ( quoting Whiteford ex rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 582 N.W.2d 916, 918 (Minn. 1998)).

Cruess SR, Johnston S, Cruess RL. “Profession”: a working definition for medical educators. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16(1):74–6. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1601_15 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Szalados JE. Legal issues in the practice of critical care medicine: a practical approach. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:S44–58.

Article Google Scholar

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008.

Whetstine v. Moravec, 291 N.W. 425 (Iowa 1940).

Hurley v Eddingfield, 156 Ind 416, 59 NE 1058 (Ind 1901).

Mead v Adler, 231 Or App 451, 220 P3d 118 (Or 2009).

Irvin v. Smith, 31 P.3d 934, 941 (Kan. 2001).

Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 2019).

American Medical Association. Warren v. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 2019). 2018. Available online at: https://searchltf.ama-assn.org/case/documentDownload?uri=/unstructured/binary/case/Case-Summary_Warren-v-Dinter.pdf .

Byrd v WCW, 868 SW2d 767 (Tex 1994).

Richie v. West, 23 III. 329 (1860).

Garner BA. Black’s law dictionary. 8th ed. Eagan: Thomson West Publishing; 2004.

Sanabria v. City of New York 42 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973).

Furrow, Barry R., Johnson, Sandra H.,, Jost, Timothy S. ,Schwartz, Robert L. Health Law: cases, materials and problems. 2nd ed. West Publishing. St Paul. Minn. 1991, at 126.

Small v. Howard. In: 128 mass 131; 1880.

Hill v. Stewart, 209 So. 2d 809, 812 (Miss. 1968).

Ariz Rev Stat §12-563 (2019).

Idaho Code §6-1012 (2019).

Nestorowich v Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 767 NE2d 125 (2019).

Va Code Ann §8.01-581.20 (2019).

Wash Rev Code §7.70.040 (2019).

Lewis MH, Gohagan JK, Merenstein DJ. The locality rule and the physician’s dilemma: local medical practices vs the national standard of care. JAMA. 2007;297(23):2633–7.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Waltz JR. The rise and gradual fall of the locality rule in medical malpractice litigation. DePaul L Rev. 1969;18:408.

Trull v Long, 621 So2d 1278 (Ala 1993).

Hall v. Hilbun. 466 So. 2d 856. 1985.

Frye v United States, 293 F1013 (DC Cir 1923).

Szalados JE. Policies, protocols, and guidelines. In: Szalados JE, Smith W, Wright W, editors. Law and ethics in neurocritical care: Neurocritical Care Society; 2019. p. 206–7.

Mello MM. Of swords and shields: the role of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation. Univ of Penn Law Rev. 2001;149(3):645–710.

Moffett P, Moore G. The standard of care: legal history and definitions: the bad and good news. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(1):109–12.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Moses RE, Feld AD. Legal risks of clinical practice guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(1):7–11.

Hinlicky v. Dreyfuss 18 A.D.3d 18. 2005.

Hinlicky v. Dreyfuss 6 N.Y.3d 636. 2006.

Papke v. Harbert, 738 N.W.2d 510, 517 (S.D. 2007).

Perlmutter v. Beth David Hosp. 308 N.Y. 100 (N.Y. 1954)

Bean WB. Sir William Osler: aphorisms from his bedside teachings and writings. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher; 1961, at 129

Osler W. Teacher and Student, in Aequanimitas With Other Addresses to Medical Students, Nurses and Practitioners of Medicine. PA, USA: H K Lewis, 190, at 38.

Pringle v. Rapaport, 980 A.2d 159 (Pa.Super. 2009).

Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospital, 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1993).

Callahan at 860-61.

Lester R. The “substantial factor test” for causation: Juedeman v. Montana Deaconess Medical Center. In: 48 Mont. L. Rev; 1987.

Callahan at 865.

Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 162 N.E. 99, 248 N.Y. 339, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269, 59 A.L.R. 1253 (N.Y. 1928).

Superseding intervening cause. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 . (2008). Retrieved June 7 2020 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Superseding+intervening+cause .

Superseding cause. (n.d.) TheFreeDictionary.com . (2020). Retrieved June 7 2020 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Superseding+cause . Verified October 11, 2020.

Aaron J. Broder, Res Ipsa Loquitur in Medical Malpractice Cases, 18 DePaul L. Rev. 421 (1969) citing Foltis v. City of New York, 287 N.Y. 108, 38 N.E.2d 455 (1948).

Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Tex. 1990).

Byrne v Boadle, 2 H & C. 772, 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 300 (Ex. 1863).

Ybarra v. Spangard , 25 Cal.2d 486 (1944).

State of New Jersey. Civil Model Jury Charge 5.10D RES IPSA LOQUITUR. 2015. Available online at https://civiljury.blogspot.com/2015/03/510d-res-ipsa-loquitur-model-jury-charge.html . Verified October 11, 2020.

George v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 70. 1964.

Rosen HM. Defense against res Ipsa in medical malpractice. 13 Clev.-Marshall L Rev. 1964;128

Szalados JE. Lost chance doctrine. In: Szalados JE, Smith W, Wright W, editors. Law and ethics in neurocritical care: Neurocritical Care Society; 2019. p. 28–9.

King JH. “Reduction of likelihood” reformulation and other retrofitting of the loss-of-A-chance doctrine, 28 U. Mem L Rev. 1998;491:492.

Kallenberg v. Beth Israel Hosp, 45 A.D.2d 177 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974).

South Dakota Legislature, Codified Law § 20-9-1.1 (2013).

DeBurkarte v. Louvar, 393 N.W.2d 131, 132 (Iowa 1986).

Hicks v. United States – 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir. 1966).

King v St. Barnabas Hosp. 2011 NY Slip Op 05641.

Szalados JE. Civil law and liability. In: Szalados JE, editor. Ethics and law for neurosciences clinicians: foundations and evolving challenges. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2019. p. 50–1.

Chapter Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Director, Surgical and Neurocritical Care Units, Rochester Regional Health System at Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA

James E. Szalados

The Szalados Law Firm, Hilton, NY, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Szalados .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Szalados, J.E. (2021). The Laws of Professional Negligence: What Is Malpractice – And How Does Litigation Work?. In: Szalados, J.E. (eds) The Medical-Legal Aspects of Acute Care Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68570-6_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68570-6_16

Published : 03 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-68569-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-68570-6

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Ann Med Surg (Lond)
v.57; 2020 Sep

Medical negligence - Key cases and application of legislation

Rajkumar cheluvappa.

a Australian Catholic University, Watson, ACT, 2602, Australia

Selwyn Selvendran

b Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, 2217, Australia

Law entails precedent-based common law and parliamentary-legislation-based statutory law. Australian courts recognise civil wrongs, called torts. The most common tort worldwide is negligence. The first aim of the paper is to educate the Australian nursing community about medicolegal issues, statutes, important cases, legal applications, and negligence statistics pertaining to clinical practice. The second aim is to determine whether medicolegal negligence claim-numbers are commensurate with recorded statistics on adverse events. The third aim is to determine and discuss preventative approaches to minimise culpability.

Materials and methods

Relevant searches were done using Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Austlii. Data, negligence legislation, key cases, and law processes were collated and analysed based on court decision citations, legal impact, and relationships between legislation application and case law. Although New South Wales legislation was used throughout this paper, parallel statutes exist across Australian jurisdictions.

The basics of the civil tort offence of negligence are explained with step-by-step explanations. Key judgments and application of legislation in key medical negligence cases are discussed. Relevant medicolegal issues and negligence statistics are discussed. The civil tort of negligence is elaborately discussed, step-by-step, with relevant Common Law and legislation relevant to NSW. The watershed cases of Hadiza Bawa-Garba and Nurse Amaro are summarised with the ramifications for doctors and nurses. Expedient strategies to assist doctors and nurses in minimising unlawful action are discussed.

Conclusions

Adverse medical events are high in Australia. However, new claims are decreasing. Negligence claim-numbers are disproportionate to statistics on adverse events. The Hadiza Bawa-Garba and Nurse Amaro cases have opened a legal can of worms with manifold negative ramifications for the nursing community.

(i) Inexperience is irrelevant
(ii) All procedural risks must be divulged prior to patient consent (Roger v Whitaker principle)
(iii) No liability if a standard of care is one of many non-consensus standards widely accepted by peers
(i) High prevalence of adverse events and medication errors (Australia)
(ii) Decreasing negligence claims are disproportionate to increasing numbers of recorded adverse events and medication errors

1. Introduction and literature review

This paper belongs to a unique category. It is a quasi-original research-review involving law research and medicolegal negligence, admixed with existing clinical nursing data involving adverse events and medication errors.

Law refers to a set of rules enforced by a country's legal system. In Australia, it encompasses precedent-based common law and parliamentary-legislation-based statutory law. Precedent-based court-ordered common law is generally ‘subservient’ to statutory law, unless statutes do not cover specific circumstances.

A tort is a civil wrong for which the common law or statutory law provides remedies. Medical negligence is a type of tort, with compensatory damages (money) being the usual remedy. An Australian survey of Australian doctors insured with Avant showed that 65% of survey responders (2999) had been involved in a medicolegal issue at some point of time [ 1 ]. The 2 medicolegal issues most-often encountered therein were complaints to health care bodies and compensation claims. The 1995 Quality in Australian Health Care Study [ 2 ] and the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice study [ 3 ] analysed iatrogenic harm and negligence lawsuit data in Australia and the US respectively. The former study revealed that 16.6% of 14,000 hospital admissions in New South Wales and South Australia associated with an adverse event resulting in disability was caused by medicolegal negligence [ 2 ]. Of these, 51% of the adverse events were considered preventable [ 2 ]. The latter study revealed that adverse events occurred in 3.7% of 30,121 of New York state hospitalisations in 1984, and 27.6% of these adverse events occurred due to medicolegal negligence [ 3 ]. Of these adverse events, 70.5% caused medium-term disability, 2.6% caused permanent disability, and 13.6% caused death [ 3 ]. These data underscore the dire necessity of the work in this paper.

However, it is to be emphasised that Justice Ipp's 2002 review of the Australian Law of Negligence noted therein that their review was “guided by submissions of anecdotes and personal experience due to a dearth of empirical evidence” [ 4 ]. The deficiency of empirical evidence on medicolegal negligence data as a basis for the 2002 Justice Ipp report was also observed in a 2006 statistical study [ 5 ]. After Justice Ipp's 2002 review, each Australian state/territory enacted its “Civil Liability Act” version [ 6 ] – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), Civil Law Act 2002 (ACT), Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), Civil Liability Act 2002 (TAS), Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD), Wrongs Act 1958 (VIC), Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA), and Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act 2003 (NT).

There are limitation periods for commencing negligence claims by the patient. After personal injury due to medicolegal negligence, the injured plaintiff must bring an action within 6 years (Victoria, Western Australia and Australian Capital Territory) or within 3 years (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Northern Territory) after being first aware of the injury [ 7 ].

2. Background, aims, and methods

The overarching objective of this paper is to educate the Australian nursing community about medicolegal issues, statutes, and important cases pertaining to nursing clinical practice and the tort of negligence. The research presented in this paper focuses on explaining, adapting, and simplifying the “corpus and intricacies” of the Australian tort law of medical negligence, and make it relevant and useful for the Australian nursing community. This paper uses Australian Common Law in general; and NSW legislation [Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) or CLA] in particular. Firstly, this paper aims to apprise and alert Australian nurses about medico-legal issues, negligence legislation/application, and common law issues governing Australian medical practice. Secondly, this paper sets out to determine the current situation with regard to medicolegal negligence claim-numbers and adverse events (including medication administration errors). Thirdly, this paper collates and formulates succinct but informative evidence-based approaches to preclude or minimise medicolegal liability for Australian nurses.

This most significant medicolegal aspect of nursing practice is negligence involving medication administration errors [ [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] ]. In one study Australian study, medication administration errors were reported to be 15–18% of administrations of hospital stock medications [ 12 ]. In a 2006–2007 New South Wales hospital observational study involving 98 nurses administering 4271 medicines to 720 adult patients, 80% of medication administrations were associated with either a procedural or clinical error [ 8 ]. Of the 1067 administrations involving a clinical medical administration error, 11% had a major severity rating (extra dosing, unprescribed medicine administration, etc), leading to death, permanent harm, or extended hospital stay [ 8 ]. In a prospective 2004–2005 New South Wales study undertaken across 19 hospitals, medication errors occurred in 16% of patients [ 9 ]. However, more recent hospital studies indicate that about 9% of hospital medication administration result in medication administration errors [ 13 ].

Relevant searches were done using Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Austlii, followed by collation and analysis of data and law processes. Our submission is a quasi-original research-review involving law research, medicolegal negligence, and clinical nursing data involving adverse events and medication errors. The original law research in this paper pertains to current legislation and relevant high-impact case decisions from Google Scholar, and Austlii.

3. Unlawful activity in nursing practice under the courts

Criminality, where the state prosecutes an individual via the police and/or criminal courts, includes drug-misuse, and murder or attempted-murder of patients and staff. Milder offences are dealt with summarily (no jury) in lower-echelon courts, and serious offences at higher courts. Non-criminal offences include intentional and non-intentional-torts. Monetary penalties for both include compensatory damages, and/or aggravated damages for mental-anguish, and/or exemplary damages for contumelious disregard of life. Intentional-torts include battery entailing physical contact or injury, assault entailing threat of injury or danger, false imprisonment entailing unwarranted restraining, and defamation entailing reputation-damaging publications [ 14 ]. Trespass to property, is a theoretical but rare intentional-tort involving nurses during residential visits. The non-intentional tort of negligence is quality of care that fells below the standard expected of nurses.

Negligence is the most commonly encountered tort for all health professionals. Damage is death; or physical and/or pathological and/or psychiatric injury that a nurse's negligence has on the patient. Damage is caused by an adverse event--an injury caused by medical management that extends hospitalisation and/or disables someone at discharge or death [ 10 ]. A likely sequence of events starts with a duty of care; leading to poor or absent standard of care, termed negligence; leading to an adverse event, culminating in damage. Damages are remuneratory awards given to the patient by court-decisions. Negligence attracts compensatory damages for economic or non-economic losses, and sometimes, special damages. For decades, common law governed negligence. After Justice Ipp's 2002 review, each Australian state and territory enacted parallel Civil Liability Acts, with clauses specific to medicolegal negligence.

Patients impacted by adverse events may or may not file a lawsuit. Ironically, patients who successfully recovered damages may not have come under a nurse's negligent care. The prevalence of adverse events and medication errors by Australian medical personnel is startlingly high [ 10 ]. Surprisingly, the latest Australian data on negligence claims demonstrate that the magnitude of medical negligence [ 15 ] claims are not commensurate with those statistics. The number of new claims is decreasing or remains steady. Resolution of claims is improving [ 15 ]. There is an inherent conflict between compensating patients for unanticipated or rare outcomes, and the necessity to attain or maintain management quality. Unlike New Zealand which has a no-fault medical compensation scheme, Australian health professionals, unfortunately, still operate under common law and statute-based negligence systems.

4. Establishing medical negligence in New South Wales (NSW)

The tort of negligence is currently the most important and far–reaching tort rapidly becoming a liability-basis in almost every human endeavor. Over the past few decades, negligence has morphed from primarily covering physical injury and property-damage, to an action over economic loss and psychiatric diseases. It has been difficult to develop a predictable and coherent set of principles to achieve justice and to minimise negative repercussions to the community at large. However, there are a few general patterns of approach to establish a case of medical negligence:

- Establishing a duty of care

The duty of care of a medical professional not to cause a physical injury that is “reasonably foreseeable” is rather obvious, and the media reports several sensationalist cases. However, the concept of “pure, stand alone” psychiatric injury to a patient or a patient's first-degree relative not consequential to physical injury requires further elaboration. The law recognises a “pure, stand alone” psychiatric injury only if a medically-recognised psychiatric ailment is suffered by the litigant. Heartache, emotional distress, bereavement, sorrow, grief reactions, etc; are legally inadequate. The CLA repeals older legislation on “inflicted psychiatric harm or nervous shock”, and imposes several restrictions on liability [ 16 ]. It limits liability or duties of care in s30 and s32 but abstains from creating a statutory liability, as older legislation did. This statutory limitation of liability for “pure mental harm arising in connection with the victim being killed, injured or put in peril by a defendant's act or omission”, is such that a litigant can recover damages only if the litigant “witnessed the event or is a close family member”.

However, litigants may still bring a common law cause of action like the 2 following cases. In Jaensch v. Coffey (1984), the plaintiff wife was permitted to see her husband in a hospital ward immediately after his accident, leading to the development of a psychiatric condition. The medical professionals were held liable [ 17 ]. However, in this case, the High Court excluded claimants who experienced normal grief, in contrast to pathological grief. This was done in order to preclude the potential opening of the floodgates of litigations with various claims based on physiological grief reactions and malingering. In Annetts v. Australian Stations (2002), the plaintiff's son was sent to work on a cattle-station after being assured of constant supervision, which was never done resulting in the son dying of starvation and dehydration on a remote cattle station after being stranded in the desert [ 18 ]. This resulted in the plaintiffs suffering psychiatric conditions, and the cattle-station owner being held liable. Cases like these two, wherein the relationship between an employer or health-professional and the first-degree relatives of an injured victim are crucial, are still relevant to determining the duty of care without being overruled by the CLA.

- Establishing the expected standard of care, and breach of the established duty of care

If and after a litigant successfully attributes a duty of care to the defendant, the litigant must prove the standard of care that is expected of the defendant and that the defendant breached that standard of care. However, by what standard(s) is the defendant's conduct to be assessed?

Inexperience is irrelevant, as demonstrated by Jones v. Manchester Corporation (1952) [ 19 ] wherein a trainee anaesthetist first tries a nitrous oxide mask on a burn victim with facial burns. The patient's facial skin sloughs. Two loading doses of barbiturate were administered by the trainee anaesthetist leading to the patient's death. The trainee anaesthetist's inexperience was not accepted as a defence in the court's decision.

Is mental illness relevant? Yes and no. Combinations of defences such as McNaughton's rule, insanity defences, and diminished capacity are well known [ 20 ]. However, does it make a difference if a medical professional (amongst other categories of defendants) is suffering from a psychiatric illness? Much to a medical professional's chagrin, there will always be attempts, and successful attempts at that, to extricate “sanity from insanity” as evident from the following two cases, which are relevant, but do not include medical professionals as litigants or defendants. In Adamson v. Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957), a patient with schizophrenic delusions ran over a pedestrian. The court accepted the comparison of the deluded patient's driving capacity to that of a “reasonable sane driver”, holding the patient liable [ 21 ]. In Carrier v. Bonham (2002), a schizophrenic patient escapee from hospital jumped in front of vehicle with the intent to commit suicide. However, the patient is unharmed. However the driver of the vehicle developed a recognised psychiatric condition due to this event. The court held the schizophrenic patient liable [ 22 ].

What standards are required of medical professionals and specialists, as far as pre-procedure disclosure is concerned? Originally, the obsolete Bolam test was in widespread use. The Bolam test, as extracted from Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957) [ 23 ] states that a professional body determines the standard of skill and care, no negligence-liability is extended if a procedure is not a common practice amongst peers, and small procedural risks need not be explained. In the aspect of divulgence of miniscule risks to patients, the Bolan test was overruled by the Roger v Whitaker principle, from a case where a specialist was held liable for not divulging sympathetic ophthalmia as a possible (albeit small) risk for an eye procedure [ 24 ]. The Roger v Whitaker principle states that all risks, including very small risks, must be divulged to a patient prior to consent for a procedure.

Although obvious, it should be emphasised that the progressive accruement of medical knowledge with time is irrelevant whilst considering older cases of medical negligence [ 25 ].

Cosmetic surgeons and professionals face high risks of negligence claims. An Australian study reviewed 481 malpractice claims (2002–2008), showing 16% of legal disputes involving consent over cosmetic procedures, 70% claiming non-disclosure of a particular complication by their medical provider; and liposuction, breast augmentation, face/neck lifts, eye/brow lifts, and rhinoplasty/septoplasty composing 70% of cases [ 26 ].

The key liability-related segment of CLA legislation is CLA 5O (Standard of care for professionals) which excludes liability if the standard is widely accepted by Australian peers, even if one of multiple differing non-consensus standards [ 16 ]. However, it is necessary to consider the circumstances in which community standards prevail over professional standards? What can be a good “definition” of the expected standard of care? As paraphrased from the CLA s5B(1) and s5B(2), the expected standard of care is the standard of care “of the reasonable person in response to a reasonably foreseeable risk which must be real, highly-probable despite precautions, and not far-fetched”. This is particularly important when standard clinical practices are involved, but unforeseeable events as in the Hunter case [ 27 ]. In this case, the defendant, a psychiatric patient, kills his friend while being driven by him from the hospital to his mother's home for further treatment. The CLA legislation places the onus and trust on bona fide medical opinion. This supersedes any Common Law duty of care to the dead friend's relatives, and removes liability from the part of the health service [ 16 ].

- Establishing causation, “remoteness”, and the scope of liability

Clichéd as it may be, it has to be emphasised that damage is the gist of negligence and without damage which can be “recoverable in law”, there can be no liability [ 28 ]. It must be demonstrable that damage must be caused by the defendant's negligence in a factual breach of a duty of care to the plaintiff [ 28 ]. Establishment of causation is indeed a web of intrigues, and often ambiguous, being adjudicated on a case by case basis. As succinctly stated, “The field of debate, causation, is one of the most difficult in the law, and one about which abstract discussion is seldom valuable for courts and those who practise in them” [ 29 ].

The “but for” test, “remoteness”, and legislation

In the Barnett case [ 30 ], a man was poisoned by Arsenic in his tea. As the emergency department doctor was sick at home, the man was asked to go home and call his own doctor, but died 5 h later. It was determined that the hospital was not negligent although the doctor was “negligent in not attending the emergency department”. This was because an intravenous drip would not have been given at the emergency hospital even 4 h after assessment, and even if it had been, the survival chances were poor. Herein, there was no causation because the “but-for” test for negligence requires the comparison of what actually happened with what hypothetically might have.

What is the chance of recovery or better outcome that needs to be shown to for the “but-for” test of negligence? In Tabet v Gett (2010), a patient with chicken pox showing symptoms and signs of Varicella Zoster meningitis was treated for the same. However, the patient developed convulsions after a few days, after which a CT scan was taken showing a previously undiagnosed brain tumour. The patient developed residual neurological deficits. However, the relevant medical establishment was held not negligent for not doing a CT scan earlier because the chance of recovery without neurological deficit was not in the least doing a CT scan earlier during the diagnosis of Varicella Zoster meningitis. The court determined that for the plaintiff to show “the loss of the chance of a better outcome” in clinical cases with bad prognoses, a greater than 50% chance of recovery needs to be demonstrable. This behooves a 50% chance of recovery, for the “but-for” test to be positive in showing a defendant's negligence [ 31 ].

As indicated earlier, the Roger v Whitaker principle emphasises the necessity of all risks, including very small risks (like sympathetic ophthalmia in this case), to be divulged to a patient prior to procedural consent [ 24 ]. In Chappel v Hart (1998) the risk of oesophageal perforation was not stated pre-operatively despite concerned questioning by the patient [ 32 ]. During the patient's oesophageal diverticular surgery, the complications of oesophageal perforation and mediastinitis arose, resulting in a partial loss of voice. It was determined that the doctor's failure to warn the patient caused the latter's injuries, as the patient might have desisted from undergoing the procedure, if he was aware of the same. The pre-CLA cases Rogers v Whitaker (1992) and Chappel v Hart (1998) emphasise the necessity of clinical personnel to inform the patient of all possible risks, however small.

In the 2013 post-CLA case, Wallace v Kam (2013), the information-divulgence was deemed inadequate and faulty, but the court decision favoured the defendant neurosurgeon [ 33 ]. Spine surgery has the inherent risks of temporary paralysis (neuropraxia) or permanent paralysis of spinal nerves. The patient was not warned of these by the doctor. However, after an unsuccessful spine surgery, the patient developed neuropraxia with severe pain for some time. The patient was clear in stating that he would not have undergone the surgery if he had known of all risks (including permanent paralysis), but he would have undergone the surgery if he had known about neuropraxia that eventuated. These nuances were crucial in the court finding in favour of the defendant neurosurgeon, who was held not liable. The differences between subclauses (a) and (b) of CLA 5D(1) was further dissected in this case [ 16 ]. Determination of whether the neurosurgeon's negligence caused specific harm comprised of:

o Did the neurosurgeon's negligence cause specific harm? Yes, it did.
o CLA s5D(3) was used to determine what the injured party would have done if the negligent individual had not been negligent.
o Was the neurosurgeon's negligence within the scope of liability? No, it did not.
o CLA 5D(4) was used to determine the scope of liability in order to evaluate if and why responsibility for the neuropraxia be imposed on the neurosurgeon. It was determined by the court that there was “remoteness” of harm from the negligent act, and that the patient should not be compensated for the materialisation of a risk that he would have been prepared to accept.

Factual causation requires establishing whether the harm would have occurred without the negligent act (“but for” test) [ 34 ]. It involves a subjective determination of what the harmed person would have done if the negligent individual had not been negligent, using CLA s5D (3) . Scope of liability involves assessment of the magnitude of liability, which is inversely proportionate to “reasonable foreseeability”, “remoteness” of harm from the negligent act, and new intervening events. It involves a consideration of if, and why responsibility for a specific harm is to be imposed on negligent party using CLA s5D(4) .

Supervening and unrelated injury or illness

Two medicolegal principles pertaining to supervening and/or unrelated clinical conditions can extracted from the following two pre-CLA era cases. In Baker v Willoughby (1970), the plaintiff's first leg injury was inflicted by the first defendant. Subsequently, a bullet injury on the same leg inflicted by a bank robber resulted in the amputation of that leg. It was determined by the court that the latter event did not reduce the first defendant's liability in the causation of the plaintiff's first leg injury [ 35 ]. This means that the legal liabilities pertaining to an injury on account of a clinician's negligence will not be obviated by a similar second injury because of a subsequent event. In Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982), it was determined that if a plaintiff suffers a debilitating illness which overwhelms an original injury due to the defendant's negligence, that may reduce the defendant's liability [ 36 ].

The “Egg shell skull” rule

The term “egg shell skull” rule originated in the Dulieu v White & Sons (1901) judgment, in which the following pithy statement can be found: “If a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer's claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart” [ 37 ]. In Smith v Leech Brain & Co (1962), a widow claimed against her dead husband's employer (defendant) that their negligence led to a burn on her dead husband's lip “leading to stem-cell transformation to carcinoma” [ 38 ]. The court ruled that it was unnecessary either to show that death by cancer was foreseeable or that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. It was determined using the “egg shell rule” that the defendant was liable because the defendant must take the patient, victim, or plaintiff as the defendant finds him/her. The “egg shell rule” has important medicolegal ramifications, as clinicians cannot use a particular patient's specific predispositions to pathology and disease as legal excuses to diminish culpability.

- Consideration of defenses

Defenses to litigation that may be used by the defendant(s) include contributory negligence and new intervening events. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these in detail.

- Consideration of damages and compensation

The fifth step is to consider damages and compensation using CLA s11-s18 which replaced several Common Law precedents prior to 2002. Specifically, CLA s12 places a cap on economic loss(<$ 1500/week ✕ 3), CLA s13 makes adjustments for future economic loss, CLA s16 covers non-economic loss and caps, CLA s17 indexes the maximum amount for non-economic loss, and CLA s18 covers interest and damages [ 16 ].

5. Poignant conflict – Delivery of quality medical care “versus” Compensation for unexpected outcomes

There is an inherent conflict between compensating patients for unanticipated or rare outcomes, and the necessity to attain or maintain management quality. The analysis in Runciman et al. [ 39 ] observes this conflict by stating, “Understanding the distinction between blameworthy behavior and inevitable human errors and appreciating the systemic factors that underlie most failures in complex systems are essential … It is important to meet society's needs to blame and exact retribution when appropriate. However, this should not be a prerequisite for compensation …”. As the tort of negligence foists the onus of damage to a “negligent act of commission or omission”; naming, shaming, blaming, castigating, and punishing well-intentioned individuals(doctors and medical staff); may alienate the very individuals endowed with the capacity to preclude such harm [ 39 ].

New Zealand (1974) and Sweden (1975) introduced a no-fault medical compensation scheme [ 40 ], with concurrent jettisoning of their older medical negligence-based compensation system. Damages are shelled out by an insurer-pool, but the standard of care is overseen by an independent body, thereby dichotomising compensation and deterrence. Finland (1987) and Denmark (1992) followed suit with a scheme funded by a private system [ 40 ]. France (2002) [ 41 ] and Belgium (2010) [ 42 ] were more circumspect in establishing a more confined and controlled scheme compared to the Scandinavian countries. The United States has medical tort legislation at the state level - States statutes have caps/limitations on damages, liability, attorney-fees and awards from collateral sources [ 43 ]. Medical practitioners in the UK and Australia, however, do not have the “luxury” of a no-fault compensation system. They still operate under the Common Law and statute-based negligence system.

6. Medical errors and negligence claims

Patients impacted by medical negligent medical care may or may not file a lawsuit, and ironically(and conversely), patients who may have recovered damages may not have come under a doctor's negligent care [ 39 ]. An American study involved a random sample of 1452 closed malpractice claims from 5 insurers [ 44 ]. The alarming data was that for 3% of claims, there were no verifiable medical injuries, and 37% did not involve errors. Logically, most claims that involved injuries due to error did have medical injuries/errors (73%) [ 44 ]. However, the “reassuring data” was that most of the claims not associated with errors (72%) or injuries (84%) did not result in compensation [ 44 ].

In a recent online publication, “Literature Review: Medication Safety in Australia. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care”, Roughhead et al. include data on adverse events and medication errors owing to negligence by medical personnel [ 10 ]. On examining the data presented therein, it is indeed surprising that the magnitude of medical negligence claims is not commensurate with those statistics. For example, interspersed in the section, “Medication safety in the hospital setting” therein, the data pertaining to medication errors include medicine administration errors (5–10%), intravenous medication administration errors (70%), harm-inducing prescribing errors (2.5%), clinical prescribing errors (0.2%), software-attributable prescribing errors (0.6%), procedural prescribing errors (5%), discharge-summary errors (12–80%), and post-transition medication-initiation delay errors (20%)

Are negligence claims in Australia commensurate with this? The latest Australian data (except from Western Australia) from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) [ 45 ] for the years 2012–2013 show that new public sector claims was less (~950) than 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 (1200–1400). Closed public sector claims was higher (~1500) than 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 (1100–1400). New private sector claims remained steady (3300) from 2010 to 2012 (3200). Closed private sector claims increased (3800) from 2010 to 2012 (2400). It is clear that the number of medical negligence claims is disproportionate to medication error data.

7. The watershed cases of GMC v BAWA-GARBA and Nurse Amaro – “Manslaughter by gross negligence”

The recent “manslaughter by gross negligence” case brought by the UK General Medical Council against the Paediatric Registrar Hadiza Bawa-Garba and the Registered Nurse Isabel Amaro resulted in a judgment( https://www.blackstonechambers.com/documents/636/GMC_v_BAWA-GARBA.pdf ) which has ruffled a lot of feathers in the medical and nursing communities this year [ 46 ]. The 2018 January judgment included a version of events which are paraphrased and summarised here. Six-year-old Jack Adcock was admitted to the Children's Assessment Unit (CAU) at Leicester Royal Infirmary following a referral from his General Practioner. Jack had Down Syndrome, an associated underlying cardiac condition, and a recent history of dyspnoea, diarrhoea, and vomiting. He was treated by Kadiza Bawa-Garba, a paediatric registrar in year six of her postgraduate training, who was solely in charge of the emergency department and acute Children's Assessment Unit that day. A paediatric arrest team was summoned after Jack collapsed. When Bawa-Garba came into the Jack's Patient Bay, she promptly called the resuscitation off, stating that Jack had “do not resuscitate (DNR)” instruction added earlier in the day. A first-year doctor went through the notes, and stated that there was no DNR-entry in Jack's file. Furthermore, Bawa-Garba explicitly stated that she did not ask the name of the patient that she was treating. Bawa-Garba also agreed that she missed the significance of the Jack's aberrant blood test results showing deranged renal function, and casting doubts on her initial diagnosis of moderate dehydration complicating gastroenteritis. Bawa-Garba missed the clear-cut clinical manifestations of sepsis. Bawa-Garba failed to specify to Jack's mother that Jack's regular hypotensive medication, Enalapril should be discontinued as it could aggravate his clinical condition. This led to Jack's mother giving Jack the medication. Bawa-Garba failed to offer clear direction to her team, or call on the assistance of a senior consultant, in the light of what was obviously a serious medical emergency. The Registered Nurse Isabel Amaro wrongly indicated that Jack's case was a ‘low-level concern’, despite the fact that he required high oxygen levels. Additionally, Amaro's record-keeping of vital signs were incomplete and substandard. Moreover, Amaro did not raise concerns about Jack's deteriorating condition with her senior nursing and medical colleagues. Bawa-Garba just returned from a circa year-long maternity leave and did not undergo an induction that she ought to have been provided. There was a patient overload that day, with three medical colleagues away for most of Bawa-Garba's shift-duration. Bawa-Garba was obviously fatigued owing to the absence of a break during her 13-h shift. Regardless, these circumstances did not mollify any aspect of the judgment. It is clear now that systemic failures, pervasive understaffing, colleague absenteeism, hospital software issues, or overwhelming patient burdens cannot be used as defences [ 47 ], especially when a patient under a clinician's care. Moreover, there is considerable angst in the medical and nursing communities in the extent Bawa-Garba's written reflections (ePortfolio) and submissions were used against her [ 48 ]. The GMC which Bawa-Garba trusted seemed to have let her down, although this subjective standpoint may be contested [ 47 ]. It is likely that doctors and nurses working in acute units like trauma, emergency units, casualties, and paediatrics will perpetually be on tenterhooks, and will refrain from candid factual submissions in future. Moreover, maintaining a reflective journal, personal memoir, or portfolio may turn out to be an exercise in self-incrimination [ 48 ]. Will the expected forthrightness and transparency expected from clinical staff be obsolete soon? Will maintaining a reflective eJournal or ePortfolio be a liability to the health professional [ 48 ]? Any loss of life in an emergency hospital or clinical setting, especially in patients with equivocal clinical presentations, will seem to invite the possibility of being tried for manslaughter under Common Law, including criminal manslaughter, despite the lack of relevant clauses in the CLA. Bawa-Garba was given permission to appeal against her deregistration in 2018 March? Bawa-Graba won her appeal to practice again, with incurred costs to be paid back to her and her crowd-funders [ 49 ]. Bawa-Graba was restored to the medical register on 2019 April 9 via the verdict of the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS), permitting her to practice, albeit under close supervision [ 50 ]. The nurse Isabel Amaro, who represented herself unlike Bawa-Graba, still remains struck off the Nursing Register [ 51 ]. The differences between relevant segments of nursing and medical tribunals, and of mitigating circumstances between Bawa-Garba and Amaro are minimal [ 51 ]. However, it seems that nurse Amaro was treated much more harshly than Bawa-Garba.

8. Discussion, implications for practice, and conclusions - Strategies in nursing to minimise legal liabilities

There are several strategies to avoid legal liabilities in nursing. Primum non nocere, meaning ‘first do no harm’, is a centuries-old guiding principle for health professionals. This aphorism is pertinent to both therapeutic interventions, and the preclusion of avoidable situations like working with immunocompromised patients while suffering a respiratory infection [ 52 ]. Following this axiom will assist nurses to act lawfully. Nurses can also prevent specific unlawful activity by adopting the following strategies. Patient confidentiality and privacy should be fervently guarded. Excepting exceptional emergencies, information regarding health status, procedure-details, procedure-risks, and alternative therapeutic options should be rendered [ 53 ]. Consent should be garnered from the patient, guardian, attorney, or proxy prior to medical procedures. On encountering legal hurdles, certain safeguards are available for nurses. Specific exclusion contract clauses may preclude liability for patient-harm, and shift liability vicariously to the employing institution. In the absence of this, a nurse ought to have an adequate level of appropriate insurance cover. The nurses' degree of autonomy may enhance liability; and hierarchical power wielded by another health or administrative professional over the nurse may diminish liability [ 54 ].

The best available evidence to date indicate that hospital nursing medication administration errors (excluding timing errors) happen in approximately 9% of medication administrations [ 13 ]. Ensuring adequate staffing and regular refresher-training of health personnel may preclude patient harm [ 9 ]. Adequate documentation, speedy complaints-resolution, and rigorous incident reporting may remove or deflect liability and/or the onus of proof [ 11 ]. Academic detailing reduces Schedule 8 medication prescription errors, and double-checking and inter-disciplinary communication strategies (involving pharmacists) have been shown to be efficacious in reducing negligence involving medication administration errors [ 13 ]. Despite these studies being small, these strategies have been shown to be successful in Australia as reviewed before [ 13 , 55 ].

To prove negligence, the plaintiff needs to demonstrate the defendant's duty of care, the standard of the defendant's expected caregiving, and legal breach of that duty of care to the plaintiff. The duty of care of a medical professional is not to cause a physical injury that is “reasonably foreseeable”. The CLA is the legal yardstick in medicolegal negligence today. However, cases (Common Law) where the relationship between an employer or health-professional, and the first-degree relatives of patients or injured victim are still relevant without being overruled by the CLA. If and after a litigant successfully attributes a duty of care to the defendant, the litigant must prove the standard of care that is expected of the defendant and that the defendant breached that standard of care. Inexperience is irrelevant. All risks, including very small risks, must be divulged to a patient prior to consent for a procedure. The CLA excludes liability if the standard is widely accepted by Australian peers, even if one of multiple differing non-consensus standards. To prove negligence, it must be demonstrable that damage must be caused by the defendant's negligence in a factual breach of a duty of care to the plaintiff. The “but-for” test for negligence requires the comparison of what actually happened with what hypothetically might have. The “egg shell rule” implies that a particular patient's specific predispositions to pathology and disease cannot be used as an excuse to diminish culpability.

It is important for a nurse to act lawfully, as unlawful activity by nurses puts patients and nursing careers at risk. The constituents of lawful or unlawful activity in nursing under the courts were expounded. Relevant medicolegal issues and negligence statistics were discussed. Strategies to assist nurses in minimising unlawful action were deliberated. Unlike New Zealand which has a no-fault medical compensation scheme, Australian health professionals still operate under common law and negligence statutes. Adverse events are high in Australia. However, new claims are decreasing. Negligence claim-numbers are disproportionate to statistics on adverse events. Consistent verification, acknowledged disclosure, compliance with legislation and common law, fastidious adherence to established professional norms, and preclusion of practices leading to poor standards of care are essential to the nursing professional.

Author contributions

Rajkumar Cheluvappa – Research, writing, submitting, revising, and proof-editing

Selwyn Selvendran – Ideas, writing

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed.

Declaration of competing interest

Neither author has conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. Neither author has financial or other interests in any “product or distributor of the product”. Neither author has associations like consultancies, relevant stock ownership, relevant equity interests or patent-licensing arrangements.

Acknowledgements

Download PDF
Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
Permissions

Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality : A Review

1 Stanford Law School, Stanford, California
2 Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
3 Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina
Editorial Malpractice Liability and Quality of Care William M. Sage, MD, JD; Kristen Underhill, JD, DPhil JAMA
Viewpoint Another Medical Malpractice Crisis Coming? Try Something New William M. Sage, MD, JD; Richard C. Boothman, JD; Thomas H. Gallagher, MD JAMA

Question Is greater risk of malpractice liability associated with better quality of care?

Findings In this systematic review of 37 studies of obstetrical care outcomes, patient mortality, hospital readmissions, avoidable hospitalizations, and other measures, statistically significant associations between liability risk and quality-related outcome measures were rarely observed. Most studies focused on inpatient care.

Meaning Most studies in this review found no association between greater risk of malpractice liability and health care quality.

Importance The tort liability system is intended to serve 3 functions: compensate patients who sustain injury from negligence, provide corrective justice, and deter negligence. Deterrence, in theory, occurs because clinicians know that they may experience adverse consequences if they negligently injure patients.

Objective To review empirical findings regarding the association between malpractice liability risk (ie, the extent to which clinicians face the threat of being sued and having to pay damages) and health care quality and safety.

Data Sources and Study Selection Systematic search of multiple databases for studies published between January 1, 1990, and November 25, 2019, examining the relationship between malpractice liability risk measures and health outcomes or structural and process indicators of health care quality.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Information on the exposure and outcome measures, results, and acknowledged limitations was extracted by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic pooling was not possible due to variations in study designs; therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively.

Main Outcomes and Measures Associations between malpractice risk measures and health care quality and safety outcomes. Exposure measures included physicians’ malpractice insurance premiums, state tort reforms, frequency of paid claims, average claim payment, physicians’ claims history, total malpractice payments, jury awards, the presence of an immunity from malpractice liability, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Medicare malpractice geographic practice cost index, and composite measures combining these measures. Outcome measures included patient mortality; hospital readmissions, avoidable admissions, and prolonged length of stay; receipt of cancer screening; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators and other measures of adverse events; measures of hospital and nursing home quality; and patient satisfaction.

Results Thirty-seven studies were included; 28 examined hospital care only and 16 focused on obstetrical care. Among obstetrical care studies, 9 found no significant association between liability risk and outcomes (such as Apgar score and birth injuries) and 7 found limited evidence for an association. Among 20 studies of patient mortality in nonobstetrical care settings, 15 found no evidence of an association with liability risk and 5 found limited evidence. Among 7 studies that examined hospital readmissions and avoidable initial hospitalizations, none found evidence of an association between liability risk and outcomes. Among 12 studies of other measures (eg, patient safety indicators, process-of-care quality measures, patient satisfaction), 7 found no association between liability risk and these outcomes and 5 identified significant associations in some analyses.

Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review, most studies found no association between measures of malpractice liability risk and health care quality and outcomes. Although gaps in the evidence remain, the available findings suggested that greater tort liability, at least in its current form, was not associated with improved quality of care.

Editorial Malpractice Liability and Quality of Care JAMA

Manage citations:

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

Academic Medicine
Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
Allergy and Clinical Immunology
American Indian or Alaska Natives
Anesthesiology
Anticoagulation
Art and Images in Psychiatry
Artificial Intelligence
Assisted Reproduction
Bleeding and Transfusion
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
Climate and Health
Climate Change
Clinical Challenge
Clinical Decision Support
Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Consensus Statements
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Critical Care Medicine
Cultural Competency
Dental Medicine
Dermatology
Diabetes and Endocrinology
Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Drug Development
Electronic Health Records
Emergency Medicine
End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
Environmental Health
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Facial Plastic Surgery
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Genetics and Genomics
Genomics and Precision Health
Global Health
Guide to Statistics and Methods
Hair Disorders
Health Care Delivery Models
Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Care Safety
Health Care Workforce
Health Disparities
Health Inequities
Health Policy
Health Systems Science
History of Medicine
Hypertension
Images in Neurology
Implementation Science
Infectious Diseases
Innovations in Health Care Delivery
JAMA Infographic
Law and Medicine
Leading Change
Less is More
LGBTQIA Medicine
Lifestyle Behaviors
Medical Coding
Medical Devices and Equipment
Medical Education
Medical Education and Training
Medical Journals and Publishing
Mobile Health and Telemedicine
Narrative Medicine
Neuroscience and Psychiatry
Notable Notes
Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Occupational Health
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Otolaryngology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Care
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Patient Care
Patient Information
Performance Improvement
Performance Measures
Perioperative Care and Consultation
Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmacoepidemiology
Pharmacogenetics
Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy
Physician Leadership
Population Health
Primary Care
Professional Well-being
Professionalism
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Public Health
Pulmonary Medicine
Regulatory Agencies
Reproductive Health
Research, Methods, Statistics
Resuscitation
Rheumatology
Risk Management
Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
Shared Decision Making and Communication
Sleep Medicine
Sports Medicine
Stem Cell Transplantation
Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Pearls
Teachable Moment
Technology and Finance
The Art of JAMA
The Arts and Medicine
The Rational Clinical Examination
Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
Translational Medicine
Trauma and Injury
Treatment Adherence
Ultrasonography
Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
Vaccination
Venous Thromboembolism
Veterans Health
Women's Health
Workflow and Process
Wound Care, Infection, Healing
Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
Access PDFs of free articles
Manage your interests
Save searches and receive search alerts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study

Affiliations.

1 Department of Environmental Health, College of Public Health, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, P.O. Box 1982, Saudi Arabia.
2 Forensic Medicine Division, Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, P.O. Box 1982, Saudi Arabia.
3 Deanship of Library Affairs, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, P.O. Box 1982, Saudi Arabia.
PMID: 34113436
PMCID: PMC8156516
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.37448.1

Background : Medical negligence is an increasing public health concern among healthcare providers worldwide as it affects patient safety. It poses a significant risk of patient injury, disease, disability, or death. The WHO has recognized deficiencies in patient safety as a global healthcare issue to be addressed. This study aimed to analyze various components of medical negligence research literature. Methods : Bibliographic data visualizations tools like Biblioshiny (RStudio) and VOSviewer were used besides MS Excel to examine the types of documents, annual scientific production, top contributing authors and their impact, authorship patterns and collaboration, top contributing countries and organizations, most significant sources of publication, most cited documents, and most frequently used keywords. Bibliometric methods were used to analyze the bibliographic records of research output on medical negligence downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. Results : The annual productivity of medical negligence research was increasing gradually. The most productive period for medical negligence research was 2011-2020. Bird contributed the highest number of publications to medical negligence literature while Brennan emerged as the highly cited author. Single-authored publications on medical negligence were not highly cited. The United States was the highest contributing country and the University of South Florida was the highest contributing organization while Harvard University was a highly cited organization. Nine out of the top ten contributing organizations were academic institutions and most of them belonged to the United States. The most important sources of publication on this topic were The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Localio et al . was the most important research article on medical negligence research. Conclusion : Due to increasing attention on this topic, there was a sharp increase in the research output on medical negligence. This is of significance as the WHO set in motion a patient safety program almost two decades ago.

Keywords: Medical negligence; bibliometric; medical errors; medical malpractice; patient safety; scientometric.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests were disclosed.

Figure 1.. Authorship and collaboration pattern

Figure 2.. Author keywords.

Related information

Grants and funding, linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
F1000 Research Ltd
PubMed Central
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

LIABILITY OF THE LEGAL PRACTIONERS FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

August 2021

National Law University, Delhi

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study

Saad Dahlawi Roles: Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Ritesh G Menezes Roles: Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Mohammad Ajmal Khan Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources Abu Waris Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Software - Saifullah Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing Mirza Muhammad Naseer Roles: Software, Visualization

This article is included in the Health Services gateway.

Medical negligence, medical malpractice, medical errors, patient safety, bibliometric, scientometric

Introduction

Medical negligence (also known as medical malpractice, medical errors, tort system) is an increasing public health concern among healthcare providers worldwide. The most comprehensive definition is “an act of omission or commission in planning or execution that contributes or could contribute to an unintended result” ( Grober & Bohnen, 2005 ; Thavarajah, Saranya & Priya, 2019 ). Medical negligence occurs when a healthcare professional selects the wrong method or procedure or improperly executes an appropriate method to treat or diagnose the patient ( Chukwuneke, 2015 ). There is no clear definition of medical negligence due to lack of nomenclature, overlapping of definitions, and lack of a standardized method to measure it ( Rodziewicz, Houseman & Hipskind, 2020 ).

All clinical practitioners and healthcare providers (e.g. physicians, nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals) are responsible for any mistakes that could lead to medical negligence. There are several areas where medical negligence can arise, such as technical errors during surgical procedures, misdiagnosis of the disease, or prescribing the wrong medicine or incorrect dose ( Tariq, Vashisht, Sinha & Scherbak, 2020 ). These practices pose a significant risk of patient injury, disease, disability, or death. Subsequently, it may give rise to criminal and financial liabilities on hospitals and healthcare institutions ( He et al. , 2015 ; Ramanathan, 2014 ). Medical negligence lawsuits are focused on the medical professional's damage, injury, or failure to the patient. In general, medical negligence relief is given by means of penalties, i.e. monetary compensation ( Cheluvappa & Selvendran, 2020 ; Tumelty, 2020 ).

It is not easy to estimate the annual cost of liabilities and compensations on hospitals and public healthcare organizations. However, many studies show that this could be in billions of dollars per year. A study by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom estimated that the annual cost is around $1.20 billion ( Mathew, Asimacopoulos & Valentine, 2011 ). Medical negligence has been recognized for a long time by many researchers from different backgrounds. Several previous studies focused on the economic burden of medical negligence either on clinical practitioners as individuals or healthcare organizations as a management system. However, due to the complicity of this issue, it is not easy to estimate the exact cost of liabilities and compensations on doctors, hospitals, and healthcare organizations ( Mello, Chandra, Gawande, & Studdert, 2010 ).

The patient or the claimant has the right to file a lawsuit against clinicians by proving the following: the clinician owes a duty of care, there was a breach of that duty, and that breach caused the injury or damage ( Beran, Devereaux & Buchanan, 2020 ; Connelly & Serpell, 2020 ; Phillips, Thorne, Casey & Russo, 2021 ). Many previous studies focus on the estimation of annual cost and the financial liabilities on both the public and the private healthcare systems. The cost is not only the direct monetary expense that the doctors must pay but it also includes indirect costs such as physician’s time, stress, and loss of reputation ( Albano et al. , 2019 ). Furthermore, Wilson et al. (1995) reported that about 16% of 14000 hospitalization cases in Australia resulted in adverse disability due to medical negligence with legal implications. Moreover, doctors and medical professionals face lawsuits due to the cases filed against them due to negligen.

A study in Wuhan city in China performed 519 autopsies between 2004 and 2013 to evaluate medical negligence. The study showed that 36.6% of the death cases were due to medical malpractice ( He et al. , 2015 ). Every year, thousands of cases are filed in the courts against healthcare professionals due to tort cases ( Sohn, 2013 ). Despite the high occurrence of these cases, medical negligence is claimed to be under-reported in most healthcare settings ( Wu, 2000 ). It is, therefore, difficult to provide accurate statistics about medical negligence cases due to difficulties in analyzing and evaluating such type of data ( Jena, Seabury, Lakdawalla & Chandra, 2011 ; Rodziewicz, Houseman & Hipskind, 2020 ). There are many reasons for the limited availability of data related to medical negligence since not all hospitals have a clear policy for reporting every single medical error during routine medical procedures. Moreover, patients suffering from medical negligence may recover from damage and therefore may not be considered a medical negligence case thereafter.

As a result of criminal and financial liabilities arising due to medical negligence and the increasing demand to improve patient safety and quality care, there is an increased international focus on improving patient outcomes, safety, and quality of care that has led stakeholders, policymakers, and healthcare organizations to adopt standardized processes for evaluating healthcare organizations. Hospitals and healthcare organizations are now adopting standardized processes and an international accreditation system ( Alkhenizan & Shawb, 2011 ). The accreditation and certification system provide recommended guidelines and international standards to improve healthcare and patient safety in hospitals. The result is certification by an independent external auditor. Despite the national and international strategies for pushing hospitals and healthcare centers to be certified by recognized accreditation bodies, patient safety remains below the acceptable levels. Many studies proved that the effectiveness of such accreditation and certification is limited. Brubakk et al. (2015) claim that accreditation has little effect on patient outcomes, organizational culture, and reliability. Many other researchers argue that there was no convincing evidence on improving output quality and patient safety due to accreditation and certification ( Grepperud, 2015 ; Bogh, et al. , 2017 ).

Nevertheless, it is challenging to provide consistent solutions to eliminate or minimize recurrent events and work toward improving patient safety ( Oyebode 2013 ). Furthermore, it is essential that the governing bodies for the healthcare system should enforce hospitals to establish a litigation system by providing guidelines and steps to resolve the matter either by out of court settlement or a full court trial. This system should include effective policy and procedure to ensure high standards of effectiveness, transparency, and justice for all the involved parties ( Alkhenizan & Shafiq, 2018 ).

This research paper aimed to summarize the previous research done in this area and to determine the existing practice to control such issues. The trends of previously published research on this topic have been highlighted by emphasizing highly cited authors, international collaboration, keywords used, and analysis of future trends. Although several review articles on medical negligence have been published that summarize previous work ( Epstein, 2020 ; Connelly and Serpell, 2020 ; Birch and Todd, 2020 ), no bibliometric study has been published to date to analyze the research conducted in this field. In this study, a thorough evaluation of previously published literature on medical negligence and tort cases was conducted. Research output published in Web of Science were retrieved and analyzed to classify and determine the next steps and find out research gaps.

The bibliometric study is a quantitative analysis and statistical assessment to analyze the published articles using different parameters such as the leading authors and co-authors, keywords co-citations, document co-citations, institutes performance, international collaboration, etc. There is a notable growth trend in publication output along with more participation and collaboration of countries and institutes. The purpose of this type of analysis is to focus on the emerging trends and the knowledge structure on a topic. Using bibliometric tools, it is possible to generate easy to follow visual representations of complex correlations. This article provides a clear overview and general trends of research conducted on medical negligence over the last 67 years. It will highlight the highly cited publications and classify the existing literature into groups and clusters based on the latest developments and future trends.

To determine the types of documents

To know the annual scientific production

To find the top contributing authors and their impact

To examine authorship and collaboration patterns

To recognize top contributing countries and organizations

To identify the most relevant sources of publication

To discover the most cited documents

To detect the most frequently used keywords

Source database and search query

The bibliographic records of research output on medical negligence research were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) using the e-resources portal of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU). Web of Science (WOS) has been recognized as the most accurate and consistent indexing and abstracting database used by researchers worldwide and it has comprehensive coverage ( Birkle, et al. , 2020 ; Khan et al. , 2020 ; Tahira, Alias & Bakri, 2013 ). Data were downloaded on October 25th, 2020 using WOSCC category topic search (TS) with the following query:

TS= ("medical negligence") Refined by: [excluding] DOCUMENT TYPES: (NEWS ITEM OR NOTE OR MEETING ABSTRACT OR CORRECTION) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC.

The present study was limited to publications on “medical negligence” indexed in the WOS database only; no other databases were used for bibliographic data. Therefore, the results of this study should be considered keeping in view the limitations of the study.

Data selection

As compared to other search queries, we found the highest number of records for download with the search query above without applying any filter for time limit, country, or language. The total number of records downloaded and analyzed was 464. All publications relating to medical negligence were selected without any filter. Data were screened for duplication through Endnote Desktop X8 with matching options title, author, and year, which found zero duplicate records.

Data analysis

Annual scientific production : Number of scientific publications produced in a year.

Top contributing authors and their impact : Authors who contributed the most in the field of study and impact of their research in the field in terms of citations received.

Authorship and collaboration patterns : Pattern of working of authors and how they collaborate with others to conduct the studies.

Top contributing countries and organizations : Countries and organizations who contributed the most in the field of study.

Most relevant sources of publication : Journals or sources where maximum number of documents were published relating to the field of study.

Most cited documents : Documents which received highest number of citations.

Types of documents : Forms of output of the documents like article, conference proceedings paper, review paper etc.

Frequently used keywords : Keywords which were used more frequently by the authors.

Analysis and visualization tools

Bibliographic data analysis and visualization tools Biblioshiny (RStudio, Version 1.2.5033) and VOSviewer (Version 1.6.13) were used in addition to MS Excel. Biblioshiny was used to determine the annual scientific production, top contributing authors and their impact, top contributing countries and organizations, most relevant sources of publication, most cited documents, and types of documents. MS Excel was used to determine the authorship and collaboration patterns while VOSviewer was used to visualize the frequently used keywords in medical negligence research.

Results and discussion

Table 1. documents type.

Document type	Publications	Local citation score	Global citation score
Article	304	108	3,374
Review	66	13	343
Editorial	49	15	108
Letter	32	5	17
Proceedings	13	0	7

Table 2. Annual scientific productivity

Period	Total publications	Percentage	Cumulative percentage	Total citations	Total citations per document
1954-1960	4	0.86%	0.86%	0	0.00
1961-1970	2	0.43%	1.29%	0	0.00
1971-1980	3	0.65%	1.94%	0	0.00
1981-1990	51	10.99%	12.93%	62	1.22
1991-2000	70	15.09%	28.02%	1,915	27.36
2001-2010	118	25.43%	53.45%	1,073	9.09
2011-2020	216	46.55%	100.00%	799	3.70

Table 3. Top ten contributing authors and their impact

Authors (n = 974)	Affiliation	Country	Total publication (TP)	Total citations (TC)	Citation impact (TC/TP)	h_ index	Publication year start
Bird S	MDA National, Sydney	Australia	9	18	2	3	2007
Samuels A	University of Southampton	UK	5	3	1	1	1983
Brahams D	Lincoln's Inn, London,	UK	4	1	0	1	1981
Studdert D M	University of Melbourne	Australia	4	275	69	4	2000
Fenn P	University of Nottingham	UK	4	86	22	4	1994
Todd N V	Chris Moody Rehabilitation Centre	UK	4	8	2	2	2014
Popa T	RMIT University, Melbourne	Australia	4	4	1	1	2017
Tribe D M R	University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield	UK	4	4	1	1	1990
Brennan T A	CVS, Woonsocket	USA	3	754	251	3	1991
Bal B S	SINTX Technologies Corporation, Salt Lake City	USA	3	41	14	2	2012

Figure 1. Authorship and collaboration pattern

Table 4. top ten contributing countries.

Countries (n = 51)	Year	Total publications (TP)	Total citations (TC)	Citation Impact (TC/TP)
USA	1988	96	1,735	18.07
UK	1991	83	625	7.53
Australia	1998	36	210	5.83
India	1998	21	53	2.52
Peoples R China	2010	18	64	3.56
Italy	2000	17	119	7.00
Germany	1998	10	53	5.30
Canada	2005	10	42	4.20
Japan	2002	7	31	4.43
Netherlands	2003	6	77	12.83

Results of some previous studies were similar to this study, which exhibited that the United States was the most productive country in different areas of research, such as like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), m-health, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and regulatory T-cell ( Bonilla-Aldana et al. , 2020 ; Danesh & Ghavidel, 2020 ; Menezes et al., 2020 ; Ram, 2019 ; Ram, 2020 ; Sweileh et al. , 2017 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ; Zongyi, et al. , 2016 ; Zyoud, 2016 ).

Table 5. Top ten contributing organizations

Rank	Organizations (n =546)	Country	Year of establishment	Total publications (TP)	Total citations (TC)	Citation Impact (TC/TP)
1	University of South Florida	USA	1956	16	58	3.63
2	Harvard University	USA	1636	9	762	84.67
2	University of Melbourne	Australia	1853	9	72	8.00
4	University of Padua	Italy	1222	7	29	4.14
4	Queensland University of Technology	Australia	1989	7	6	0.86
6	Oregon Health & Science University	USA	1887	6	39	6.50
6	Wayne State University	USA	1868	6	33	5.50
6	New York University	USA	1831	6	28	4.67
6	Children's Hospital of Philadelphia	USA	1855	6	20	3.33
6	Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research	India	1957	6	6	1.00

Our analysis showed that nine out of the top ten contributing organizations were academic institutions and most of them (six) were based in the United States, which also confirmed the results of the country-wise analysis. Analogous results were exhibited during earlier studies, which found that universities contributed much of the research related to MERS, coronavirus, and regulatory T-cells ( Danesh & Ghavidel, 2020 ; Ram, 2020 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ; Zongyi, Dongying & Baifeng, 2016 ).

Table 6. Top ten sources of publications

Rank	Total publications	Total citations	Publications year start
1	23	439	1954
1	23	198	1984
3	16	9	1983
4	10	112	2008
4	10	21	2007
4	10	1	1979
7	9	91	2005
7	9	33	2009
9	7	92	1986
9	7	5	2015

The results of this study found that the most important sources of publication for medical negligence research were The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Some earlier studies discovered that the most favored journals for research on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Coronavirus, and MERS were the Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume , and Journal of Virology , respectively ( Ram, 2019 ; Ram, 2020 ; Wang et al. , 2016 ; Zyoud, 2016 ).

Table 7. Top ten most cited documents

Rank	Documents (n = 464)	Total citations	Citation years	Total citations per year
1	Localio AR, 1991, New Engl J Med	521	30	17.37
2	Vincent C, 1994, Lancet	396	27	14.67
3	Kraman SS, 1999, Ann Intern Med	267	22	12.14
4	Studdert DM, 2000, Med Care	218	21	10.38
5	Summerton N, 1995, Brit Med J	105	26	4.04
6	Brady AP, 2017, Insights Imaging	70	4	17.50
7	Huycke LI, 1994, Ann Intern Med	69	27	2.56
8	Poonnoose PM, 2002, J Trauma	66	19	3.47
9	Hurwitz B, 2004, Brit Med J	55	17	3.24
10	Vidmar N, 1993, Iowa Law Rev	48	28	1.71

Figure 2. Author keywords.

Based on the findings of this study, it can be understood that medical negligence research is published in various types of sources and a variety of output formats. We can conclude that research on medical negligence is getting the attention of the researchers, which has resulted in a sharp increase in the research output during the last two decades. This is of significance as the WHO set in motion a patient safety program almost two decades ago in the year 2004 recognizing deficiencies in patient safety as a global healthcare issue to be addressed ( WHO, 2004 ). Research on medical negligence is mostly concentrated in developed countries and contributing authors are inclined towards collaborative research. The study concludes that the accumulation of citations does not depend on the productivity of an author. It is recommended to replicate this study after ten years to observe future research trends in the field.

Data availability

Underlying data.

Open Science Framework: Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and impacts on the patient safety: A bibliometric study, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DR3NZ ( Dahlawi et al. , 2021 ).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Alkhenizan A, Shawb C: Impact of accreditation on the quality of healthcare services: A systematic review of the literature. Ann Saudi Med 2011; 31 (4): 407–416. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Alkhenizan A, Shafiq M: The process of litigation for medical errors in Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. Saudi Med J 2018; 39 (11): 1075–1081. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Albano GD, Bertozzi G, Maglietta F, et al. : Medical records quality as prevention tool for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) related litigation: A case series. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2019; 20 (8): 653–657. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, et al. : Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Sci Stu 2020; 1 (1): 363–376. Publisher Full Text
Beran RG, Devereaux JA, Buchanan D: Some legal aspects of epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 2020; 111 : 107244. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Bogh SB, Falstie-Jensen AM, Hollnagel E, et al. : Predictors of the effectiveness of accreditation on hospital performance: A nationwide stepped-wedge study. Int J Qual Health Care 2017; 29 (4): 477–483. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Bonilla-Aldana DK, Holguin-Rivera Y, Cortes-Bonilla I, et al. : Coronavirus infections reported by ProMED, February2000-January2020. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020; 33 (January-February 2020: 101575. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Birch N, Todd NV: The cost of consent why healthcare providers must be compliant with the Montgomery principles. Bone Joint J 2020; 102(B) (5): 550–555. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Brubakk K, Vist GE, Bukholm G, et al. : A systematic review of hospital accreditation: The challenges of measuring complex intervention effects. BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15 (1): 280–290. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cheluvappa R, Selvendran S: Medical negligence - Key cases and application of legislation. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2020; 57 : 205–211. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Chukwuneke F: Medical incidents in developing countries: A few case studies from Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 2015; 18 (7): 20–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Connelly A, Serpell M: Clinical negligence. Anaesth Intensive Care Med 2020; 21 (10): 524–527. Publisher Full Text
Danesh F, GhaviDel S: Coronavirus Scientometrics of 50 years of global scientific productions. Iranian J Med Microbiol 2020; 14 (1): 1–16. Publisher Full Text
Dahlawi S, Menezes RG, Waris A, et al. : Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: A bibliometric study.2021, January 20. Publisher Full Text
Epstein NE: What Can Spine Surgeons Do to Improve Patient Care and Avoid Medical Negligence Suits? Surg Neurol Int 2020; 11 (38): 1–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Grepperud S: Is the hospital decision to seek accreditation an effective one? Int J Health Plann Manage 2015; 30 (1): E56–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Grober ED, Bohnen JMA: Defining medical error. Can J Surg 2005; 48 (1): 39–44. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
He F, Li L, Bynum J, et al. : Medical malpractice in Wuhan, China. Medicine 2015; 94 (45): 1–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, et al. : Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med 2011; 365 (7): 629–636. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Khan AS, Ur Rehman S, AlMaimouni YK, et al. : Bibliometric analysis of literature published on antibacterial dental adhesive from 1996-2020. Polymers 2020; 12 (2848): 1–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Mathew R, Asimacopoulos E, Valentine P: Toward safer practice in otology: A report on 15 years of clinical negligence claims. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (10): 2214–2219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Mello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, et al. : National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff 2010; 29 (9): 1569–1577. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Menezes RG, Usman MS, Memon MM, et al. : Landmark publications on sudden infant deathsyndrome: A bibliometric analysis. Forensic Sci Rev 2020; 32 (2): 117–127.
Oyebode F: Clinical errors and medical negligence. Med Princ Pract 2013; 22 (4): 323–333. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Phillips C, Thorne L, Casey AT, et al. : Medical negligence: A neurosurgeon’s guide. Interdiscip Neurosurg 2021; 23 : 100970. Publisher Full Text
Ramanathan T: Law as a tool to promote healthcare safety. Clin Gov 2014; 19 (2): 172–180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Ram S: “Carpal tunnel syndrome:” A bibliometric study of 35 years of research. Neurol India 2019; 67 (Supplement): S55–S61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Ram S: Coronavirus research trends: A 50-year bibliometric assessment. Sci Technol Libr 2020; 39 (2): 210–226. Publisher Full Text
Rodziewicz TL, Houseman B, Hipskind JE: Medical error prevention. In: StatPearls StatPearls Publishing; 2020; PubMed Abstract
Sohn DH: Negligence, genuine error and litigation. Int J Gen Med 2013; 6 : 49–56. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, AbuTaha AS, et al. : Bibliometric analysis of worldwide scientific literature in mobile - health: 2006-2016. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (1): 72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Tahira M, Alias RA, Bakri A: Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities. Scientometrics 2013; 96 (3): 865–879. Publisher Full Text
Tariq RA, Vashisht R, Sinha A, et al. : Medication Dispensing Errors and Prevention. In: StatPearls StatPearls Publishing; 2020. PubMed Abstract
Thavarajah R, Saranya V, Priya B: The Indian dental litigation landscape: An analysis of judgments on dental negligence claims in Indian consumer redressal forums. J Forensic Leg Med 2019; 68 . PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Tumelty ME: Medical negligence litigation and apologies: An empirical examination. European J Health Law 2020; 27 (4): 386–403. PubMed Abstract
Wang Z, Chen Y, Cai G, et al. : A Bibliometric analysis of PubMed literature on Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13 (6): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, et al. : The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995; 163 (6): 458–471. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
World Health Organization: WHO PatientSafety.2004 Reference Source [Accessed 21 Jan 2021].
Wu AW: Adverse drug events and near misses: who's counting? Am J Med 2000; 109 (2): 166–168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Zongyi Y, Dongying C, Baifeng L: Global regulatory T-Cell research from 2000 to 2015: A bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE 2016; 11 (9): 1–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Zyoud SH: Global research trends of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus a bibliometric analysis. BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16 (1): 1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central	-	-

Open Peer Review

Replace "clear definition" with "universally accepted definition" [last sentence of first paragraph in Introduction]

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: research methodology, statistical analysis, public health

Respond or Comment
COMMENT ON THIS REPORT

Reviewer Expertise: Information behavior; Knowledge sharing; Bibliometric analysis; Information literacy

Author Response 31 Mar 2021 Saad Dahlawi , Department of Environmental Health, College of Public Health, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, P.O. Box 1982, Saudi Arabia 31 Mar 2021 Author Response Dear reviewer Thanks for reading our manuscript and giving us your valuable feedback. We appreciate your quick and positive comments. Thank you very much. Saad Dahlawi The corresponding author Competing Interests: No competeing interests to disclose. Dear reviewer Thanks for reading our manuscript and giving us your valuable feedback. We appreciate your quick and positive comments. Thank you very much. Saad Dahlawi The corresponding author Dear reviewer Thanks for reading our manuscript and giving us your valuable feedback. We appreciate your quick and positive comments. Thank you very much. Saad Dahlawi The corresponding author Competing Interests: No competeing interests to disclose. Close Report a concern

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Reviewer Reports


	1	2
03 Mar 21	read	read

Ghulam Murtaza RAFIQUE , University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan
Rijen Shrestha , Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal

Comments on this article

All Comments (0)

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:

Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.

Stay Updated

Already registered? Sign in

Not now, thanks

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Negligence in Law of Torts

Pertaining to the significance of negligence in law of torts, the given paper attempts to bring in light key features of negligence torts through comprehensive elaboration of various case laws.

Related Papers

Dafe M Ugbeta

MALAY KR GHOSHAL KUMAR OF SUNDERBANS

Chun Yu Wong

Richard W Wright

Shiena Amodia

The Cambridge Law Journal

Paula Giliker

The paper has dual aim: to analyse the structure of negligence, and to use it to offer an explanation of responsibility (for actions, omissions, consequences) in terms of the relations which must exist between the action (omission, etc.) and the agents powers of rational agency if the agent is responsible for the action. The discussion involves reflections on the relations between the law and the morality of negligence, the difference between negligence and strict liability, the role of excuses and the grounds of duties to pay damages.

Mitali Jain

Public awareness towards medical negligence is developing in India due to which, it now days have turned into one of the significant issues in India. Medical profession, however, is one of the noblest professions, still is not invulnerable to negligence which at times results in death of patient or complete / partial impairment of limbs, or culminates into another misery. Negligence by doctors has always been determined by judges who are not trained in medical science, who depend on the experts' conclusion and settle on the premise of essential standards of reasonableness and prudence. This leads to a lot of subjectivity in the decision and the exertion is to decrease it and have certain objective criteria. In this manner, there is a steady tussle between the established procedures and innovative methods. These issues make it extremely challenging to decide negligence by doctors. The present paper aims to analyze the concept of negligence in the medical profession in the light of interpretation of law by the Supreme Court of India.

Annual Survey of India

B.C. Nirmal

Tort LawVol. LVII] 619 * Former Vice-chancellor, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, and Former Dean, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University. The author acknowledges the research assistance provided by Rabindra Kr. Pathak, Assistant Professor, NUSRL, Ranchi. 1 M Stuart Madden, “Tort Law Through Time And Culture: Themes of Economic Efficiency” in M Stuart Madden (ed) Exploring Tort Law 12 (Cambridge University Press, 2005). 2 Matthew D. Adler, “Corrective Justice and Liability for Global Warming” 155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1859 (2007). 3 Hanoch Sheinman, “Tort Law and Corrective Justice” 22 Law and Philosophy 21(2003). 4 “A draft code of torts for India was prepared by Sir Frederick Pollock but it was never enacted into law.” See, M C Setalvad, The Common Law in India 110 (London, Steven and Sons Limited, 1960). 5 Per Krishna Iyer, J in Rohatas Industries Limited v. Rohats Industries Staff Union, AIR 1976 SC 425. LAW OF TORT B C Nirmal* I INTRODUCTION TORT LAW represents a society’s revealed truth as to the behaviours it wishes to encourage and the behaviours it wishes to discourage. The sphere of tort law is getting wider as a result of the felt necessities of the prevailing times, more so in areas such as climate change that requires a revisitation to the foundational idea of corrective justice, an idea so essential to understand the working of tort law. However, as regards tort law in India, based upon Common Law and largely uncodified, this law has evolved keeping in view the ‘local conditions’ as it was believed that we cannot incorporate English torts without any adaptation into Indian law. This process of evolution and adaptation rests upon the contribution made by way of judicial pronouncements. The ‘survey’ seeks to map the growth of tort law each year taking into the account the judgments of the Supreme Court and the high courts that contribute to its growth. This year’s survey explores some of the important judgments that need to be discussed in order to understand and appreciate the incremental growth that has taken place in tort law.

jeremy horder

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Professional Negligence, Solicitors: Recent Case Law, 2014

Queen's University Belfast Law Research Paper No. 2014-04

Conference Paper at Professional Negligence for Private Client Practitioners STEP Northern Ireland Stormont Hotel, Belfast, 28 Feb 2014

13 Pages Posted: 21 Mar 2014 Last revised: 5 Aug 2014

Jack Anderson

Queen's University Belfast

Date Written: March 20, 2014

In preparation for this talk I have reviewed cases of interest in the High Courts and Courts of Appeal of England and Wales and Northern Ireland from the past two years or so on professional negligence and liability and principally relating to solicitors. There are six topics of interest: the general duty of care demanded of solicitors in the carrying out of their professional obligations; whether there is a specific duty on a solicitor to warn or advise a client of any implied risk in, say, a commercial transaction; what is the scope of the duty on a solicitor to explain the content of or clauses in a legal document; a recent case of interest applying the White v Jones principle to a disappointed beneficiary seeking to make a claim against a solicitor who negligently prepared a will; the practical, limitation issue of how to pinpoint in a professional negligence claim when the damage was first sustained by the claimant; and finally some case law here and in England and Wales on the (costs) implications for solicitors relating to any failure to adhere to case management protocols or related court directions.

Keywords: Professional Negligence, torts, Northern Ireland

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Jack Anderson (Contact Author)

Queen's university belfast ( email ).

25 University Square Belfast, BT7 1NN Ireland

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, contracts & commercial law ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal

English & commonwealth law ejournal, torts & product liability law ejournal, law & society: private law - torts ejournal.

IMAGES

Article Study: The Case of Negligence
Journal of Professional Negligence
(DOC) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
(PDF) Medical negligence: Coverage of the profession, duties, ethics
Chapter 3 (Professional Negligence)
Negligence Revision Sheet

VIDEO

1st NEET Then UGC-NET
Gross Negligence: Class 10 board examination paper of social science subject full of mistakes!
Professional Negligence
#118
Professional Ethics under Pressure
Don't mistake patience for negligence #stevewilkos #crime #truestory #talkshow #realityshow

COMMENTS

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study
Table 2 displays the annual scientific productivity and citations per document on medical negligence research, and shows that annual productivity of medical negligence research has increased gradually. Research output was very low in the beginning with only nine research papers published from 1954 to 1980 with an accumulated percentage of 1.94%.
Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality
Malpractice claims payments measure, specified at county level, calculated as indemnity plus defense costs divided by number of years in practice in 1977-1983. Birth outcomes: fetal death; low Apgar score; death within 5 days of birth; longer-term infant death; death or permanent impairment at age 5. Physician, county.
The Laws of Professional Negligence: What Is Malpractice
Medical malpractice is an increasingly generic term to describe professional negligence that occurs in the course of medical care. Whereas traditionally, allegations of medical malpractice were almost always directed at physicians, medical groups, or hospitals, the causes of action based in medical malpractice are now regularly and increasingly addressed to advance practice providers, such as ...
Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality: A Review
R01 AG049898/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States. In this systematic review, most studies found no association between measures of malpractice liability risk and health care quality and outcomes. Although gaps in the evidence remain, the available findings suggested that greater tort liability, at least in its current form, was not associated with ….
A Tour of the Tort of Negligence by James Goudkamp, Melody Ihuoma
James Goudkamp and Melody Ihuoma, 'A Tour of the Tort of Negligence' (2016) 32 Professional Negligence 117. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20/2016. 13 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2016 Last revised: 24 Jul 2016. See all articles by James Goudkamp James Goudkamp. University of Oxford - Faculty of Law.
Patient negligence in healthcare systems: Accountability model
This manuscript intends to create a standardized and well-structured accountability model that tackles patient negligence in healthcare systems. A random sample of 41 hospitals (33 private and 8 public) - representing more than 25% of hospitals in Lebanon - was selected for participation in interviews discussing compliance and ...
Medical negligence
However, there are a few general patterns of approach to establish a case of medical negligence: STEP 1. - Establishing a duty of care. The duty of care of a medical professional not to cause a physical injury that is "reasonably foreseeable" is rather obvious, and the media reports several sensationalist cases.
Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality : A Review
ObjectiveTo review empirical findings regarding the association between malpractice liability risk (ie, the extent to which clinicians face the threat of being sued and having to pay damages) and health care quality and safety. Data Sources and Study SelectionSystematic search of multiple databases for studies published between January 1, 1990 ...
Medical Malpractice Law
This article was published on October 22, 2022, and updated on October 28, 2022, at NEJM.org.
PDF American Medical Association Journal of Ethics
negligence obtain what research suggests they truly desire: (1) an account of why the harm occurred; (2) an apology from the health care professionals involved; (3) information about how similar harms can be avoided in the future; and (4) appropriate restitution for an avoidable harm [27].
Professional Negligence and Medical Malpractice
Three actions that can be brought against doctors or medical institutions, contract, negligence, and product liability. This paper explicated only the medical negligence, the basis of liability; the acts that constitute negligence and the available defenses to the medical practitioners and medical institutions.
Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on
This paper considers the drivers for the increased cost of clinical negligence claims in the UK compared to the USA, Germany and Australia, from a spinal and orthopaedic point of view, with a ...
Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on
The most important sources of publication on this topic were The Lancet and British Medical Journal. Localio et al. was the most important research article on medical negligence research. Conclusion: Due to increasing attention on this topic, there was a sharp increase in the research output on medical negligence. This is of significance as the ...
Covid-19 and medical negligence litigation: Immunity for healthcare
Medical negligence, Covid-19, coronavirus, immunity, litigation, patient safety. A number of news outlets1,2 have recently reported on calls from the Medical Defence Union (MDU) to grant doctors immunity from medical negligence claims with concerns over both the extent of the financial and personal costs that would be involved.
Understanding Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
Understanding Medical Malpractice Lawsuits. Physicians are at increased risk for medical malpractice if they fail to provide care a minimally competent physician would do under similar circumstances. 1, 2 Physicians providing stroke care have even greater exposure since they are engaged in high-risk care due to time-sensitive and complex ...
Contributory Negligence and Professional Negligence: An Empirical
In this chapter, we seek to fill this gap, by means of both empirical and qualitative analysis of recent contributory negligence case law in the United Kingdom. This analysis suggests that there are certain distinctive features of the operation of the contributory negligence doctrine in the professional negligence context.
(PDF) Professional Negligence
NEGLIGENCE. Augustine Arimoro, PhD. V oli v Inglewood Shire Council (1935) 110 CLR 74. A professional or skilled person undertaking any work in the way of his. profession accepts the ordinary ...
Liability of The Legal Practioners for Professional Negligence: a
The Act defines inter alia the rights of legal practitioners. to sue for their fees and their liability to be sued in respect of negligence. in the discharge of their professional duties. The Act ...
Medical negligence in healthcare organizations...
Medical negligence lawsuits are focused on the medical professional's damage, injury, or failure to the patient. In general, medical negligence relief is given by means of penalties, i.e. monetary compensation (Cheluvappa & Selvendran, 2020; Tumelty, 2020). It is not easy to estimate the annual cost of liabilities and compensations on hospitals ...
(PDF) Negligence in Law of Torts
UTLJ. Gross Negligence and Criminal Culpability" (1997) jeremy horder. Download Free PDF. View PDF. NEGLIGENCE IN LAW OF TORTS SADAF QADIR LLB-2 07-12-21 fNEGLIGENCE An action of negligence proceeds on the idea of duty of reasonable care on part of defendant and breach of that duty has caused injury to plaintiff.
Professional Negligence, Solicitors: Recent Case Law, 2014
Conference Paper at Professional Negligence for Private Client Practitioners STEP Northern Ireland Stormont Hotel, Belfast, 28 Feb 2014. ... Solicitors: Recent Case Law, 2014 (March 20, 2014). Queen's University Belfast Law Research Paper No. 2014-04, Conference Paper at Professional Negligence for Private Client Practitioners STEP Northern ...
PDF Tort of Negligence in India
NEGLIGENCE (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances1. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm. 1. "Negligence". Encyclopedia Britannica.

The Laws of Professional Negligence: What Is Malpractice – And How Does Litigation Work?

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Medical Law Aspects: Germany

Malpractice

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Medical negligence - Key cases and application of legislation

Selwyn Selvendran

Materials and methods

Conclusions

1. Introduction and literature review

2. Background, aims, and methods

3. Unlawful activity in nursing practice under the courts

4. Establishing medical negligence in New South Wales (NSW)

5. Poignant conflict – Delivery of quality medical care “versus” Compensation for unexpected outcomes

6. Medical errors and negligence claims

7. The watershed cases of GMC v BAWA-GARBA and Nurse Amaro – “Manslaughter by gross negligence”

8. Discussion, implications for practice, and conclusions - Strategies in nursing to minimise legal liabilities

Author contributions

Provenance and peer review

Declaration of competing interest

Acknowledgements

Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality : A Review

Read More About

Manage citations:

Others Also Liked

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Related information

LIABILITY OF THE LEGAL PRACTIONERS FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Medical negligence in healthcare organizations and its impact on patient safety and public health: a bibliometric study

Introduction

Source database and search query

Data selection

Data analysis

Analysis and visualization tools

Results and discussion

Table 2. Annual scientific productivity

Table 3. Top ten contributing authors and their impact

Figure 1. Authorship and collaboration pattern

Table 5. Top ten contributing organizations

Table 6. Top ten sources of publications

Table 7. Top ten most cited documents

Figure 2. Author keywords.

Data availability

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Negligence in Law of Torts

Related Papers

RELATED TOPICS

Professional Negligence, Solicitors: Recent Case Law, 2014

Jack Anderson

Jack Anderson (Contact Author)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS