Malpractice Litigation Related to Diagnosis and Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
02
01
2023
accepted:
23
02
2023
pmc-release:
01
04
2024
medline:
12
4
2023
pubmed:
31
3
2023
entrez:
30
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Approaches to management of intracranial aneurysms are inconsistent, in part due to apprehension relating to potential malpractice claims. The purpose of this article was to review the causes of action underlying medical malpractice lawsuits related to the diagnosis and management of intracranial aneurysms and to identify the factors associated and their outcomes. We consulted 2 large legal databases in the United States to search for cases in which there were jury awards and settlements related to the diagnosis and management of patients with intracranial aneurysms in the United States. Files were screened to include only those cases in which the cause of action involved negligence in the diagnosis and management of a patient with an intracranial aneurysm. Between 2000 and 2020, two hundred eighty-seven published case summaries were identified, of which 133 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Radiologists constituted 16% of 159 physicians sued in these lawsuits. Failure to diagnose was the most common medical malpractice claim referenced (100/133 cases), with the most common subgroups being "failure to include cerebral aneurysm as a differential and thus perform adequate work-up" (30 cases), and "failure to correctly interpret aneurysm evidence on CT or MR imaging" (16 cases). Only 6 of these 16 cases were adjudicated at trial, with 2 decided in favor of the plaintiff (awarded $4,000,000 and $43,000,000, respectively). Incorrect interpretation of imaging is relatively infrequent as a cause of malpractice litigation compared with failure to diagnose aneurysms in the clinical setting by neurosurgeons, emergency physicians, and primary care providers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Approaches to management of intracranial aneurysms are inconsistent, in part due to apprehension relating to potential malpractice claims. The purpose of this article was to review the causes of action underlying medical malpractice lawsuits related to the diagnosis and management of intracranial aneurysms and to identify the factors associated and their outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We consulted 2 large legal databases in the United States to search for cases in which there were jury awards and settlements related to the diagnosis and management of patients with intracranial aneurysms in the United States. Files were screened to include only those cases in which the cause of action involved negligence in the diagnosis and management of a patient with an intracranial aneurysm.
RESULTS
Between 2000 and 2020, two hundred eighty-seven published case summaries were identified, of which 133 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Radiologists constituted 16% of 159 physicians sued in these lawsuits. Failure to diagnose was the most common medical malpractice claim referenced (100/133 cases), with the most common subgroups being "failure to include cerebral aneurysm as a differential and thus perform adequate work-up" (30 cases), and "failure to correctly interpret aneurysm evidence on CT or MR imaging" (16 cases). Only 6 of these 16 cases were adjudicated at trial, with 2 decided in favor of the plaintiff (awarded $4,000,000 and $43,000,000, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Incorrect interpretation of imaging is relatively infrequent as a cause of malpractice litigation compared with failure to diagnose aneurysms in the clinical setting by neurosurgeons, emergency physicians, and primary care providers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36997286
pii: ajnr.A7828
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7828
pmc: PMC10084911
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
460-466Informations de copyright
© 2023 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 May;39(5):875-880
pubmed: 29650787
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;23(3):243-50
pubmed: 26728524
Brain. 2000 Feb;123 ( Pt 2):205-21
pubmed: 10648430
Stroke. 2016 Mar;47(3):750-5
pubmed: 26797666
Radiology. 2019 May;291(2):400-408
pubmed: 30777807
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019;47(5-6):253-259
pubmed: 31412341
J Forensic Leg Med. 2021 May;80:102170
pubmed: 33878590
Stroke. 2019 Oct;50(10):2858-2864
pubmed: 31422736
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Jul;219(1):152-156
pubmed: 35138133
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016 Mar;142:104-111
pubmed: 26827168
J Neurosurg. 2017 Nov;127(5):1077-1083
pubmed: 28009242
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 18;365(7):629-36
pubmed: 21848463
J Hosp Med. 2017 Aug 23;13(1):26-29
pubmed: 29068439
JAMA Neurol. 2018 Jan 1;75(1):27-34
pubmed: 29159405
Stroke. 2019 Sep;50(9):2396-2403
pubmed: 31340732
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2018 Aug;28(3):335-351
pubmed: 30007749
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39237
pubmed: 22761745
Radiology. 2019 May;291(2):411-417
pubmed: 30888931
Front Neurol. 2022 Feb 23;13:784326
pubmed: 35280303
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jul 04;167(1):26-33
pubmed: 28586893