A comparison of obstetric and nonobstetric anesthesia malpractice claims
- PMID: 1990900
- DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199102000-00009
A comparison of obstetric and nonobstetric anesthesia malpractice claims
Abstract
Malpractice claims filed against anesthesiologists for care involving obstetric (OB) anesthesia (n = 190) were taken from the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Closed Claims Database and compared to claims not involving OB cases (n = 1351). The most common complications in the OB claims were (percentage of all OB claims): maternal death (22%), newborn brain damage (20%), and headache (12%). In contrast, the most common complications in the nonobstetric (non-OB) group were (percentage of all non-OB claims): death (39%), nerve damage (16%), and brain damage (13%). The group of OB claims contained a proportionately greater number of minor injuries, such as headache, backache, pain during anesthesia, and emotional injury (32%) compared to the non-OB claims (4%). Complications due to aspiration and convulsions were more common among the OB cases. The standard of care was judged to have been met in 46% of OB and 39% of non-OB claims. This difference is not statistically significant. Claims involving general anesthesia were more frequently associated with severe injuries and resulted in higher payments than did claims involving regional anesthesia. Payments were made in a similar proportion of OB and non-OB claims (53 and 59%, respectively). For cases in which payments were made, the median payment for OB claims was significantly greater ($203,000) than for non-OB claims ($85,000; P less than or equal to 0.05).
Similar articles
-
Injuries associated with regional anesthesia in the 1980s and 1990s: a closed claims analysis.Anesthesiology. 2004 Jul;101(1):143-52. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200407000-00023. Anesthesiology. 2004. PMID: 15220784
-
Liability associated with obstetric anesthesia: a closed claims analysis.Anesthesiology. 2009 Jan;110(1):131-9. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318190e16a. Anesthesiology. 2009. PMID: 19104180
-
A Contemporary Analysis of Medicolegal Issues in Obstetric Anesthesia Between 2005 and 2015.Anesth Analg. 2019 Jun;128(6):1199-1207. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003395. Anesth Analg. 2019. PMID: 31094788
-
Anesthesia Liability Related to Pre-existing Conditions.Anesthesiol Clin. 2024 Mar;42(1):33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.anclin.2023.08.003. Epub 2023 Sep 15. Anesthesiol Clin. 2024. PMID: 38278590 Review.
-
Characteristics of National Malpractice Claims in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Aug;78(8):1314-1318. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.03.015. Epub 2020 Mar 23. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020. PMID: 32305375 Review.
Cited by
-
Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section-are current standards achievable? Observational case series.BMJ. 2001 Jun 2;322(7298):1330-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1330. BMJ. 2001. PMID: 11387177 Free PMC article.
-
Fetal monitoring and anaesthesia for fetal distress.Can J Anaesth. 1993 May;40(5 Pt 2):R74-80. doi: 10.1007/BF03020687. Can J Anaesth. 1993. PMID: 8500215 Review. English, French. No abstract available.
-
Analysis of expert consultation referrals for anesthesia-related issues (December 2008-July 2010): KSA legislation committee report.Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011 Apr;60(4):260-5. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2011.60.4.260. Epub 2011 Apr 26. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011. PMID: 21602976 Free PMC article.
-
Spinal anaesthesia in obstetrics.Can J Anaesth. 1995 Dec;42(12):1145-63. doi: 10.1007/BF03015105. Can J Anaesth. 1995. PMID: 8595694 Review.
-
Use of an automated anesthesia information system to determine reference limits for vital signs during cesarean section.J Clin Monit Comput. 1998 Dec;14(7-8):491-8. doi: 10.1023/a:1009900810721. J Clin Monit Comput. 1998. PMID: 10385858
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous