Errors and pitfalls: Briefing and accusation of medical malpractice - the second victim.

Albrecht Wienke
{"title":"Errors and pitfalls: Briefing and accusation of medical malpractice - the second victim.","authors":"Albrecht Wienke","doi":"10.3205/cto000102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In June 2012, the German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) published the statistics of medical malpractice for 2011 (published at http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de). Still ENT-specific accusations of medical malpractice are by far the fewest in the field of hospitals and actually even in the outpatient context. Clearly most of the unforeseen incidents still occur in the disciplines of trauma surgery and orthopedics. In total, however, an increasing number of errors in treatment can be noticed on the multidisciplinary level: in 25.5% of the registered cases, an error in treatment was found to be the origin of damage to health justifying a claim for compensation of the patient. In the year before, it was only 24.7%. The reasons may be manifold, but the medical system itself certainly plays a major role in this context: the recent developments related to health policy lead to a continuous economisation of medical care. Rationing and limited remuneration more and more result in the fact that therapeutic decision are not exclusively made for the benefit of the patient but that they are oriented at economic or bureaucratic aspects. Thus, in the long term, practising medicine undergoes a change. According to the §§ 1, 3 of the professional code of conduct for doctors (Musterberufsordnung für Ärzte; MBO-Ä) medical practice as liberal profession is principally incompatible with the pursuit of profit, however, even doctors have to earn money which more and more makes him play the role of a businessman. Lack of personnel and staff savings lead to excessive workloads of physicians, caregivers, and nurses, which also favour errors. The quality and even the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, which is important for the treatment success, are necessarily affected by the cost pressure. The victims in this context are not only the patients but also the physicians find themselves in the continuous conflict between ethical requirements of their profession and the actual requirements of the realities in the healthcare field. But also the technical and scientific progress bear new risks beside the therapeutic successes, further especially bigger hospitals require high efforts regarding organisation favouring errors in cases of deficiencies. Even the increasing juridification of the medicine that is expected to achieve a provisional highlight with the planned law of patients' rights leads to an important focus on the quality of medical care (see also [1]). The explicit legal regulation of patients' rights, which have never been out of question up to now, confirms the impression of patients who have to be protected from their doctors. This development favours a natural mistrust in the quality of the treatment and the desire of legal verification in cases of treatment failures. A totally perfect and error-free treatment, however, will never occur. Already this fact leads to the obligation to do everything possible to reduce the risk to an absolute minimum. The risks that might arise from a relation of treatment are manifold. Not only may the patient undergo risks that arise in particular from lacking or insufficient briefing, complications, or medical malpractice. Also the doctor has to fear legal consequences if he does not stick clearly to the increasing requirements that jurisdiction and legislation impose - not least by the planned law of patients' rights. In the following, the basic principles and particularities will be described that apply for the patients' briefing. Further the different types of medical malpractice will be explained in relation to the resulting procedural consequences. Finally some current problematic fields will be described with regard to other possible liabilities or responsibilities of physicians in hospitals or doctor's offices. </p>","PeriodicalId":89377,"journal":{"name":"GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery","volume":"12 ","pages":"Doc10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d3/ca/CTO-12-10.PMC3884545.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/cto000102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In June 2012, the German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) published the statistics of medical malpractice for 2011 (published at http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de). Still ENT-specific accusations of medical malpractice are by far the fewest in the field of hospitals and actually even in the outpatient context. Clearly most of the unforeseen incidents still occur in the disciplines of trauma surgery and orthopedics. In total, however, an increasing number of errors in treatment can be noticed on the multidisciplinary level: in 25.5% of the registered cases, an error in treatment was found to be the origin of damage to health justifying a claim for compensation of the patient. In the year before, it was only 24.7%. The reasons may be manifold, but the medical system itself certainly plays a major role in this context: the recent developments related to health policy lead to a continuous economisation of medical care. Rationing and limited remuneration more and more result in the fact that therapeutic decision are not exclusively made for the benefit of the patient but that they are oriented at economic or bureaucratic aspects. Thus, in the long term, practising medicine undergoes a change. According to the §§ 1, 3 of the professional code of conduct for doctors (Musterberufsordnung für Ärzte; MBO-Ä) medical practice as liberal profession is principally incompatible with the pursuit of profit, however, even doctors have to earn money which more and more makes him play the role of a businessman. Lack of personnel and staff savings lead to excessive workloads of physicians, caregivers, and nurses, which also favour errors. The quality and even the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, which is important for the treatment success, are necessarily affected by the cost pressure. The victims in this context are not only the patients but also the physicians find themselves in the continuous conflict between ethical requirements of their profession and the actual requirements of the realities in the healthcare field. But also the technical and scientific progress bear new risks beside the therapeutic successes, further especially bigger hospitals require high efforts regarding organisation favouring errors in cases of deficiencies. Even the increasing juridification of the medicine that is expected to achieve a provisional highlight with the planned law of patients' rights leads to an important focus on the quality of medical care (see also [1]). The explicit legal regulation of patients' rights, which have never been out of question up to now, confirms the impression of patients who have to be protected from their doctors. This development favours a natural mistrust in the quality of the treatment and the desire of legal verification in cases of treatment failures. A totally perfect and error-free treatment, however, will never occur. Already this fact leads to the obligation to do everything possible to reduce the risk to an absolute minimum. The risks that might arise from a relation of treatment are manifold. Not only may the patient undergo risks that arise in particular from lacking or insufficient briefing, complications, or medical malpractice. Also the doctor has to fear legal consequences if he does not stick clearly to the increasing requirements that jurisdiction and legislation impose - not least by the planned law of patients' rights. In the following, the basic principles and particularities will be described that apply for the patients' briefing. Further the different types of medical malpractice will be explained in relation to the resulting procedural consequences. Finally some current problematic fields will be described with regard to other possible liabilities or responsibilities of physicians in hospitals or doctor's offices.

错误和陷阱:医疗事故的通报和指控--第二个受害者。
2012年6月,德国医学会(Bundesärztekammer)公布了2011年医疗事故统计数据(发布于http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de)。迄今为止,针对耳鼻喉科的医疗事故指控仍是医院领域中最少的,甚至在门诊领域也是如此。显然,大多数意外事件仍发生在创伤外科和骨科。然而,从总体上看,多学科治疗中的失误越来越多:在 25.5%的登记病例中,发现治疗失误是造成健康损害的原因,因此病人有理由要求赔偿。而在前一年,这一比例仅为 24.7%。原因可能是多方面的,但医疗系统本身肯定在这方面起了重要作用:与卫生政策有关的最新发展导致医疗服务不断节约化。配给制和有限的报酬越来越多地导致治疗决定并不完全是为了病人的利益,而是以经济或官僚主义为导向。因此,从长远来看,行医方式发生了变化。根据《医生职业行为准则》(Musterberufsordnung für Ärzte;MBO-Ä)第 1 条和第 3 条的规定,作为自由职业的行医原则上与追求利润不相容,然而,即使是医生也必须赚钱,这使他越来越多地扮演着商人的角色。人员的缺乏和人员的节约导致医生、护理人员和护士的工作量过大,也容易出错。成本压力必然影响到对治疗成功至关重要的医患之间的质量甚至保密关系。在这种情况下,受害者不仅是病人,医生也会发现自己的职业道德要求与医疗保健领域的实际要求之间不断发生冲突。此外,科技进步在取得治疗成果的同时也带来了新的风险,尤其是规模较大的医院需要在组织结构方面做出巨大努力,以防在出现缺陷时出现差错。即使医学的司法化程度不断提高,有望与计划中的患者权利法达成临时性的一致,也会导致对医疗质量的高度关注(另见[1])。对患者权利的明确法律规定--迄今为止,患者权利从未受到质疑--证实了患者必须受到医生保护的印象。这种发展有利于人们自然而然地对治疗质量产生不信任,并希望在治疗失败的情况下得到法律验证。然而,完全完美和无差错的治疗永远不会出现。这一事实已经要求我们尽一切可能将风险降到最低。治疗关系可能产生的风险是多方面的。病人不仅可能面临风险,尤其是由于缺乏或不充分的情况介绍、并发症或医疗事故而产生的风险。此外,如果医生不明确遵守司法和法律规定的越来越多的要求,尤其是计划中的患者权利法,他还必须担心法律后果。下文将介绍适用于患者情况介绍的基本原则和特殊性。此外,还将结合由此产生的程序性后果解释不同类型的医疗事故。最后,还将就医院或医生办公室中医生可能承担的其他责任或义务,对目前存在问题的一些领域进行说明。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信