The Steep Decline in Reporting to the National Practioner Data Bank, and a Look at Reporting Levels from "Plaintiff-Favorable" and "Defendant-Favorable" States.

Q2 Medicine
Mark Cwiek, Dimitrios Zikos, Mark Kato, Mark Taylor
{"title":"The Steep Decline in Reporting to the National Practioner Data Bank, and a Look at Reporting Levels from \"Plaintiff-Favorable\" and \"Defendant-Favorable\" States.","authors":"Mark Cwiek, Dimitrios Zikos, Mark Kato, Mark Taylor","doi":"10.1080/00185868.2024.2383907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The establishment of the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) was authorized in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, and it mandated a federal database to collect information related to adverse actions initially against just physicians and dentists throughout the United States, including payments from malpractice lawsuits, restrictions on clinical privileges by hospitals, and medical licensure limitations and revocations by state licensing boards. The aggregate data reports made by this federal data bank began in 1991. The reporting level for the first ten years remained relatively stable in the nationwide range of 16,000 to 18,000 reports per year, but then a steady decline occurred over the second and third decades to under 8,000 reports per year by the year 2021. The researchers in this study explored a theory that might explain at least part of the drop in the states' reporting levels. That is, states that could be called \"Plaintiff-Favorable\" (Arizona, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington) would demonstrate a lesser rate of decline or even an increase in the reporting levels, and states that could be characterized as \"Defendant-Favorable\" (California, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas) would demonstrate a comparatively greater rate of decline in the reporting levels. The decline in reporting to the NPDB proved fairly consistent for both Plaintiff-Favorable and Defendant-Favorable states. The larger question as to why there occurred an overall negative trend in reporting to the NPDB across the United States during the second and third decades remains an intriguing area for future exploration.</p>","PeriodicalId":55886,"journal":{"name":"Hospital Topics","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital Topics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00185868.2024.2383907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The establishment of the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) was authorized in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, and it mandated a federal database to collect information related to adverse actions initially against just physicians and dentists throughout the United States, including payments from malpractice lawsuits, restrictions on clinical privileges by hospitals, and medical licensure limitations and revocations by state licensing boards. The aggregate data reports made by this federal data bank began in 1991. The reporting level for the first ten years remained relatively stable in the nationwide range of 16,000 to 18,000 reports per year, but then a steady decline occurred over the second and third decades to under 8,000 reports per year by the year 2021. The researchers in this study explored a theory that might explain at least part of the drop in the states' reporting levels. That is, states that could be called "Plaintiff-Favorable" (Arizona, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington) would demonstrate a lesser rate of decline or even an increase in the reporting levels, and states that could be characterized as "Defendant-Favorable" (California, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas) would demonstrate a comparatively greater rate of decline in the reporting levels. The decline in reporting to the NPDB proved fairly consistent for both Plaintiff-Favorable and Defendant-Favorable states. The larger question as to why there occurred an overall negative trend in reporting to the NPDB across the United States during the second and third decades remains an intriguing area for future exploration.

向国家执业医师数据库报告的急剧下降,以及 "原告有利 "和 "被告有利 "州的报告水平。
1986 年的《医疗质量改进法案》授权建立国家执业医师数据库(NPDB),该法案规定建立一个联邦数据库,以收集全美范围内最初对医生和牙医采取的不利行动的相关信息,包括渎职诉讼的赔付、医院对临床特权的限制以及州执照委员会对医疗执照的限制和吊销。该联邦数据库从 1991 年开始提供综合数据报告。前十年的报告数量在全国范围内保持相对稳定,每年在 16,000 至 18,000 份报告之间,但随后在第二和第三个十年出现持续下降,到 2021 年,每年的报告数量不足 8,000 份。本研究的研究人员探讨了一种理论,至少可以部分解释各州报告数量下降的原因。也就是说,可以被称为 "有利于原告 "的州(亚利桑那州、肯塔基州、纽约州、宾夕法尼亚州和华盛顿州)的报告水平下降率较低,甚至有所上升,而可以被称为 "有利于被告 "的州(加利福尼亚州、密歇根州、内华达州、北卡罗来纳州和得克萨斯州)的报告水平下降率相对较高。事实证明,无论是原告有利州还是被告有利州,向 NPDB 报告的下降幅度都相当一致。至于为什么在第二个和第三个十年期间,全美向 NPDB 报告的人数总体上呈下降趋势,这个更大的问题仍然是一个值得探讨的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hospital Topics
Hospital Topics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Hospital Topics is the longest continuously published healthcare journal in the United States. Since 1922, Hospital Topics has provided healthcare professionals with research they can apply to improve the quality of access, management, and delivery of healthcare. Dedicated to those who bring healthcare to the public, Hospital Topics spans the whole spectrum of healthcare issues including, but not limited to information systems, fatigue management, medication errors, nursing compensation, midwifery, job satisfaction among managers, team building, and bringing primary care to rural areas. Through articles on theory, applied research, and practice, Hospital Topics addresses the central concerns of today"s healthcare professional and leader.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信