Autopsy Utilization in Medicolegal Defense of Anesthesiologists

Author:

Lee Lorri A.1,Stephens Linda S.2,Fligner Corinne L.3,Posner Karen L.4,Cheney Frederick W.5,Caplan Robert A.6,Domino Karen B.7

Affiliation:

1. Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, and Neurologic Surgery (adjunct), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

2. Research Scientist, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington.

3. Associate Professor, Departments of Pathology, and Laboratory Medicine (adjunct), University of Washington.

4. Research Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington.

5. Professor Emeritus, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington.

6. Clinical Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington.

7. Staff Anesthesiologist, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, and Professor, Departments of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, and Neurological Surgery (adjunct), University of Washington.

Abstract

Background The rate of autopsy in hospital deaths has declined from more than 50% to 2.4% over the past 50 yr. To understand the role of autopsies in anesthesia malpractice claims, we examined 980 closed claims for deaths that occurred in 1990 or later in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project Database. Methods Deaths with autopsy were compared with deaths without autopsy. Deaths with autopsy were evaluated to answer the following four questions: Did autopsy findings establish a cause of death? Did autopsy provide new information? Did autopsy identify a significant nonanesthetic contribution to death? Did autopsy help or hurt the defense of the anesthesiologist? Reliability was assessed by κ scores. Differences between groups were compared with chi-square analysis and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with P < 0.05 for statistical significance. Results Autopsies were performed in 551 (56%) of 980 claims for death. Evaluable autopsy information was available in 288 (52%) of 551 claims with autopsy. Patients in these 288 claims were younger and healthier than those in claims for death without autopsy (P < 0.01). Autopsy provided pathologic diagnoses and an unequivocal cause of death in 21% of these 288 claims (κ= 0.71). An unexpected pathologic diagnosis was found in 50% of claims with evaluable autopsy information (κ = 0.59). Autopsy identified a significant nonanesthetic contribution in 61% (κ = 0.64) of these 288 claims. Autopsy helped in the defense of the anesthesiologist in 55% of claims and harmed the defense in 27% (κ = 0.58) of claims with evaluable autopsy information. Conclusions Autopsy findings were more often helpful than harmful in the medicolegal defense of anesthesiologists. Autopsy identified a significant nonanesthetic contribution to death in two thirds of claims with evaluable autopsy information.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Reference20 articles.

Cited by 12 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3