Aesthetic surgery journal · 2014
Unattractive consequences: litigation from facial dermabrasion and chemical peels.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Svider Peter F, Jiron Jose, Zuliani Giancarlo, Shkoukani Mahdi A, Folbe Adam J, Carron Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Facial dermabrasion and chemical peel are common cosmetic procedures that are generally safe yet do possess inherent risks. The patient's expectations, formed well in advance of treatment, strongly correlate with overall satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES: The authors reviewed and analyzed litigation related to the performance of facial dermabrasion and chemical peel.
METHODS: The authors searched the WestlawNext legal database for relevant litigation and examined factors such as allegations raised, patient demographics, defendant specialties, final outcomes, and payments.
RESULTS: Proceedings from 25 cases were analyzed, involving 22 female and 2 male plaintiffs; in 1 case, sex was not specified. Sixteen cases (64%) resulted in a decision for the defendant and 9 (36%) were resolved with payments. The median difference between out-of-court settlements (median, $940 000) and jury-awarded damages (median, $535 000) was not statistically significant. Factors raised in litigation included poor cosmetic outcome (80%), alleged intratreatment negligence (68%), permanent injury (64%), informed-consent deficits (60%), emotional/psychological injury (44%), posttreatment negligence (32%), and the need for additional treatment/surgery (32%).
CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-court settlements and jury-awarded damages were considerable in cases where physicians practicing various (or multiple) specialties were named as defendants. These findings emphasize the need for physicians to thoroughly document potential complications prior to treatment, during the informed-consent process. Additionally, general considerations should be taken into account, such as patient expectations and the potential need for other procedures, which may enhance pretreatment communication and ultimately minimize liability. Finally, it is important to stress that physicians may be held liable for procedures performed by nonphysician ancillary staff.
OBJECTIVES: The authors reviewed and analyzed litigation related to the performance of facial dermabrasion and chemical peel.
METHODS: The authors searched the WestlawNext legal database for relevant litigation and examined factors such as allegations raised, patient demographics, defendant specialties, final outcomes, and payments.
RESULTS: Proceedings from 25 cases were analyzed, involving 22 female and 2 male plaintiffs; in 1 case, sex was not specified. Sixteen cases (64%) resulted in a decision for the defendant and 9 (36%) were resolved with payments. The median difference between out-of-court settlements (median, $940 000) and jury-awarded damages (median, $535 000) was not statistically significant. Factors raised in litigation included poor cosmetic outcome (80%), alleged intratreatment negligence (68%), permanent injury (64%), informed-consent deficits (60%), emotional/psychological injury (44%), posttreatment negligence (32%), and the need for additional treatment/surgery (32%).
CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-court settlements and jury-awarded damages were considerable in cases where physicians practicing various (or multiple) specialties were named as defendants. These findings emphasize the need for physicians to thoroughly document potential complications prior to treatment, during the informed-consent process. Additionally, general considerations should be taken into account, such as patient expectations and the potential need for other procedures, which may enhance pretreatment communication and ultimately minimize liability. Finally, it is important to stress that physicians may be held liable for procedures performed by nonphysician ancillary staff.