Rates and Characteristics of Medical Malpractice Claims Against Hospitalists. Issue 7 (11th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schaffer, Adam C; Yu‐Moe, Chihwen Winnie; Babayan, Astrid; Wachter, Robert M; Einbinder, Jonathan S
• Is Part Of: Journal of hospital medicine. Volume 16:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: 390
• Page End: 396
• Publication Date: 2021-06-11
• Subjects: Hospital care -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.12788/jhm.3557
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1553-5592

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: Hospitalists practice in high‐stakes and litigious settings. However, little data exist about the malpractice claims risk faced by hospitalists. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the rates and characteristics of malpractice claims against hospitalists. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An analysis was performed of malpractice claims against hospitalists, as well as against select other specialties, using data from a malpractice claims database that includes approximately 31% of US malpractice claims. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For malpractice claims against hospitalists (n = 1, 216) and comparator specialties (n = 18, 644): claims rates (using a data subset), percentage of claims paid, median indemnity payment amounts, allegation types, and injury severity. RESULTS: Hospitalists had an annual malpractice claims rate of 1.95 claims per 100 physician‐years, similar to that of nonhospitalist general internal medicine physicians (1.92 claims per 100 physician‐years), and significantly greater than that of internal medicine subspecialists (1.30 claims per 100 physician‐years) ( P < .001). Claims rates for hospitalists nonsignificantly increased during the study period (2009‐2018), whereas claims rates for four of the five other specialties examined significantly decreased over this period. The median indemnity payment for hospitalist claims was $231, 454 (interquartile range, $100, 000‐$503, 015), significantly higher than the amounts for all the other specialties except neurosurgery. The greatest predictor of a hospitalist case closing with payment (compared with no payment) was an error in clinical judgment as a contributing factor, with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.01 (95% CI, 3.37‐7.45). CONCLUSION: During the study period, hospitalist claims rates did not drop, whereas they fell for other specialties. Hospitalists' claims had relatively high injury severity and median indemnity payment amounts. The malpractice environment for hospitalists is becoming less favorable.