Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie · 2025
Trends in medico-legal cases against Canadian ophthalmologists: a 10-year retrospective review (2013-2022).
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Waldner Derek M, Garber Gary, Steen Anne, Finestone P J, Liu Richard, Perron Donna, Yang Qian, MacIntyre Anna, Gagné Natalie, Savoy Tricia, Warrian Kevin, Ragan Alex
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in medico-legal complaints against Canadian ophthalmologists over a ten-year period (2013-2022).
METHODS: Retrospective review of closed legal, hospital, and regulatory cases involving ophthalmologists was conducted using data from the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). Cases were systematically coded by nurse analysts using the Canadian Classification of Health Interventions, ICD-10-CA, and a specific schema for contributing factors. Data analyses utilized SAS software (9.4) and Prism GraphPad (9.4.1).
RESULTS: A total of 970 closed cases with sufficient data for analysis were identified, including 584 college complaints, 340 legal complaints, and 46 hospital complaints. Complainants were predominantly female (55.4%) and mostly aged 30-64. Of the 1021 ophthalmologists named, 210 faced multiple complaints, with 82% of complaints against those with over ten years of practice. The most common clinical presentations generating complaints were disorders of the lens (37.1%), disorders of the choroid and retina (17.3%), and disorders of refraction (14.9%). The most common complications cited in complaints included visual disturbances (22.0%) and retinal complications (13.8%). Peer expert concerns were noted in 540 cases (55.7%), with common issues being inadequate documentation (31.5%), consent processes (25.9%), and communication (20.6%). Approximately 50.9% of cases had unfavorable outcomes for CMPA members, though the most frequent unfavourable college outcome was "dismissed with concern".
CONCLUSION: This review highlights gaps in Canadian ophthalmic care, empowering ophthalmologists to address these concerns. Future work will focus on detailed assessments of cases with peer expert concerns and developing specific recommendations for clinical practice.
METHODS: Retrospective review of closed legal, hospital, and regulatory cases involving ophthalmologists was conducted using data from the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). Cases were systematically coded by nurse analysts using the Canadian Classification of Health Interventions, ICD-10-CA, and a specific schema for contributing factors. Data analyses utilized SAS software (9.4) and Prism GraphPad (9.4.1).
RESULTS: A total of 970 closed cases with sufficient data for analysis were identified, including 584 college complaints, 340 legal complaints, and 46 hospital complaints. Complainants were predominantly female (55.4%) and mostly aged 30-64. Of the 1021 ophthalmologists named, 210 faced multiple complaints, with 82% of complaints against those with over ten years of practice. The most common clinical presentations generating complaints were disorders of the lens (37.1%), disorders of the choroid and retina (17.3%), and disorders of refraction (14.9%). The most common complications cited in complaints included visual disturbances (22.0%) and retinal complications (13.8%). Peer expert concerns were noted in 540 cases (55.7%), with common issues being inadequate documentation (31.5%), consent processes (25.9%), and communication (20.6%). Approximately 50.9% of cases had unfavorable outcomes for CMPA members, though the most frequent unfavourable college outcome was "dismissed with concern".
CONCLUSION: This review highlights gaps in Canadian ophthalmic care, empowering ophthalmologists to address these concerns. Future work will focus on detailed assessments of cases with peer expert concerns and developing specific recommendations for clinical practice.