World journal of gastroenterology · 2006
Medical malpractice litigation related to gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japan: a two-decade review of civil court cases.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Hiyama Toru, Tanaka Shinji, Yoshihara Masaharu, Fukuhara Tatsuma, Mukai Shinichi, Chayama Kazuaki
Аннотация
AIM: To examine the allegations in malpractice litigations related to gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japan.
METHODS: A retrospective review of cases tried in the civil court system during the 21-year period from 1985 to 2005, identified in a computerized legal database, was undertaken.
RESULTS: Eighteen malpractice litigations and a total of 30 allegations were identified. Of the 18 (44%) malpractice litigations, 8 (44%) were related to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 4 (22%) to colonoscopy, 4 (22%) to endoscopic sphincterotomy, and 2 (11%) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Seventeen (94%) cases pertained to complications, and the remaining (6%) case pertained to misdiagnosis. In 10 cases, the patient died of the complications. Allegations were categorized as: (1) performance error during the endoscopic procedure (n = 12, 40%); (2) lack of informed consent (n = 9, 30%); (3) performance error during the treatment after the endoscopic procedure (n = 4, 13%); (4) premedication error (n = 3, 10%); (5) diagnostic error (n = 1, 3%); and (6) indication error for the endoscopic procedure (n = 1, 3%).
CONCLUSION: These data may aid in the design of risk prevention strategies to be used by gastrointestinal endoscopists.
METHODS: A retrospective review of cases tried in the civil court system during the 21-year period from 1985 to 2005, identified in a computerized legal database, was undertaken.
RESULTS: Eighteen malpractice litigations and a total of 30 allegations were identified. Of the 18 (44%) malpractice litigations, 8 (44%) were related to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 4 (22%) to colonoscopy, 4 (22%) to endoscopic sphincterotomy, and 2 (11%) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Seventeen (94%) cases pertained to complications, and the remaining (6%) case pertained to misdiagnosis. In 10 cases, the patient died of the complications. Allegations were categorized as: (1) performance error during the endoscopic procedure (n = 12, 40%); (2) lack of informed consent (n = 9, 30%); (3) performance error during the treatment after the endoscopic procedure (n = 4, 13%); (4) premedication error (n = 3, 10%); (5) diagnostic error (n = 1, 3%); and (6) indication error for the endoscopic procedure (n = 1, 3%).
CONCLUSION: These data may aid in the design of risk prevention strategies to be used by gastrointestinal endoscopists.