Malpractice and claims in interventional pain treatment

Abstract

Complications of pain medicine practice are common. Interventional techniques carry significant complications and risks. There is evidence that avoiding distressed or angry patients is associated with better outcomes, fewer complaints, and lower rates of litigation. Being respectful and pleasant with patients and communicating with them lead to lower rates of complaints and litigation. The empathy in the medical-patient relationship can avoid, in many cases, the demands for negligence. Informed consent must be obtained for each of the pain unit interventional techniques to adequately cover 2 crucial requirements: correct patient information and patient participation in the decision-making process. Documentation of written informed consent must be witnessed and documented in the patient’s record. Recognition and information of malpractice is something necessary. There is evidence that a sincere excuse can reduce the incident of litigations. A reporting system for adverse events and patient safety failures in relation to interventional techniques used in the treatment of pain (American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Analysis, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASSIP), and Spanish Notification System Security of Anesthesia and Resuscitation (SENSAR)) is important. Maintaining a dialogue with the patient or patient’s family or both after malpractice is important as is keeping the patient coming for follow-up, which allows the physician to maintain continuity of care.