The Difference Between Malpractice and Adverse Event: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature

A B S T R A C T

Background/Aim: The practice of surgery may lead to unexpected results and most such results come due to risk in the practice of medicine. Our aim is to identify the difference between malpractice and adverse event.
Case Presentation: A young male patient who experienced a cascade of adverse events after a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and even though he had the ultimate treatment an unknown and extensive atherosclerotic coronary arteries disease had led to a fatal left ventricular corruption due to an extensive myocardial infarction.
Results: The relatives of the patient filed a lawsuit against the surgeon due to the perception that death was caused by malpractice.
Conclusion: Evidence-based medicine should not become defensive, since not every unpleasant event is due to malpractice or negligence.

Keywords

Malpractice, adverse, event, surgery, risk, results, unexpected, sequela, complication



Get access to the full version of this article.

Article Info

Article Type
Case Report and Review of the Literature
Publication history
Received: Fri 04, Dec 2020
Accepted: Sat 26, Dec 2020
Published: Thu 31, Dec 2020
Copyright
© 2023 Dimitrios Mantas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.JSCR.2020.04.11

Author Info

Damaskos Christos Dimitrios Mantas Spartalis Eleftherios

Corresponding Author
Dimitrios Mantas
Professor of Surgery, 2nd Department of Propedeutic Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, Greece

Figures & Tables



Get access to the full version of this article.

References

  1. Marik PE, Corwin HL (2008) Efficacy of red blood cell transfusion in the critically ill: A systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 36: 2667-2674. [Crossref]
  2. Daniel L, Nortley M, Melly L, Bhutiani RP (2007) Ruptured spleen following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 11: 157-160. [Crossref]
  3. Geraci G, Picciurro A, Attard A, Modica G, Cajozzo M et al. (2014) A case of splenic rupture: A rare event after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. BMC Surg 14: 106. [Crossref]
  4. Bracale U, Merola G, Lazzara F, Spera E, Pignata G (2013) Spleen rupture: An unusual postoperative complication after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Ital Chir 84. [Crossref]
  5. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR et al. (2004) Harvard Medical Practice Study I. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. 1991. Qual Saf Health Care 13: 145-152. [Crossref]
  6. Hurwitz B (2004) How does evidence based guidance influence determinations of medical negligence? BMJ 329: 1024-1028. [Crossref]
  7. Thornton T, Saha S (2008) The need for tort reform as part of health care reform. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 18: 321-327. [Crossref]
  8. The Washington Times (2004) Edwards’ malpractice suits leave bitter taste.
  9. Weinstein SL (2009) Medical liability reform crisis 2008. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467: 392-401. [Crossref]
  10. Exadaktylos NI, Kranidis AI, Argyriou MO, Charitos CG, Andrikopoulos GK (2002) Left ventricular free wall rupture during acute myocardial infarction. Early diagnosis and treatment. Hellenic J Cardiol 43: 246-252.
  11. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2000) Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US).
  12. Weiler PC, Hiatt H, Newhouse JP, Johnson WG, Brennan TA et al. (1993) The epidemiology of medical injury. In: A measure of malpractice: Medical injury, malpractice litigation, and patient compensation. Weiler PC, Hiatt H, Newhouse JP, Johnson WG, Brennan TA, Leape LL (eds). Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press 33-60.
  13. Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Laird NM, Hebert LE et al. (1991) Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med 325: 245-251. [Crossref]
  14. Sohn DH (2013) Negligence, genuine error, and litigation. Int J Gen Med 6: 49-56. [Crossref]
  15. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A et al. (2006) Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 354: 2024-2033. [Crossref]
  16. Kessler D, McClellan M (1996) Do doctors practice defensive medicine? The Quarterly J Economics 111: 353-390.
  17. Graskemper JP (2002) A new perspective on dental malpractice: Practice enhancement through risk management. J Am Dent Assoc 133: 752-757. [Crossref]
  18. Ventä I, Lindqvist C, Ylipaavalniemi P (1998) Malpractice claims for permanent nerve injuries related to third molar removals. Acta Odontol Scand 56: 193-196. [Crossref]
  19. Hapcook CP Sr (2006) Dental malpractice claims: percentages and procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 137: 1444-1445. [Crossref]