Article Text
Abstract
Background Surgeons are at high risk for malpractice claims, which can significantly impact physician quality of life and risk of burnout. There are few published data reporting the incidence, outcomes, and repercussions of malpractice lawsuits on neurointerventionalists.
Methods A survey of senior members of the United States Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) was performed to study malpractice litigation and medical board complaints.
Results In total, 173 responses were obtained. Of the total sample, 66 respondents (38.2%) reported being subject to a total of 84 malpractice claims during independent practice over the last 10 years, amounting to a malpractice claim annual incidence of 5.9% (84 cases per 1423 years of practice). The majority of claims involved either brain aneurysms (34.5%) or arteriovenous malformations (23.8%), with most alleging either intra-procedural (38.1%) or post-procedural (27.3%) complications. Only three of the 58 claims that had concluded ended in court settlements (5.2%). The majority (78.3%) of claims resulted in no consequences to physician practice. Fourteen respondents (8.1%) reported being subject to a total of 16 state medical board complaints over the previous decade, with most resulting in no significant repercussions.
Conclusion Malpractice claims are common among neurointerventionalists and often cause significant physician distress, yet most result in claims being dropped or no paid damages, and the majority conclude without practice repercussions for the named physicians.
- Intervention
- Complication
- Stent
- Stroke
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
X @doctorjfred
Contributors KMF: Designed the concept and data collection survey, collected and analyzed the data, drafted and revised the paper, approved the final submission. He is the guarantor. AMI: drafted and revised the paper, and approved the final submission. JM: drafted and revised the paper, and approved the final submission. JTF: drafted and revised the paper, and approved the final submission. GD: drafted and revised the paper, and approved the final submission. JFF: drafted and revised the paper, and approved the final submission JH: drafted and revised the paper, and approved the final submission. MVJ: designed the concept and data collection survey, drafted and revised the paper, and approved the final submission.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclaimer Author KMF and JH serve on the editorial board of JNIS.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.