Accountability sought by patients following adverse events from medical care: The New Zealand experience

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 175, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 889-894

  Bismark, Marie ^a,e   Dauer, Edward ^c   Paterson, Ron ^b   Studdert, David ^d  

^a Buddle Findlay   (New Zealand)

^b Health and Disability Commissioner   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

^d HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^e Buddle Findlay   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBAMAZEPINE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BILIARY PERITONITIS; BILLING AND CLAIMS; CHILD; COMPENSATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; HEALTH HAZARD; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INJURY; LIVER FAILURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEW ZEALAND; NEWBORN; PATIENT CARE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; REVIEW; SOCIOECONOMICS; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECONOMICS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL ERROR; MOTIVATION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PUBLIC HOSPITAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL CLASS; STATISTICS;

DATA COLLECTION; HOSPITALS, PUBLIC; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL ERRORS; MOTIVATION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEW ZEALAND; PATIENT ADVOCACY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOCIAL CLASS; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 33750093488     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060429     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Vincent C, Young M, Phillips A. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action. Lancet 1994;343:1609-13.
2. Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Githens PB, et al. Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries. JAMA 1992;267:1359-63.
3. May ML, Stengel DB. Who sues their doctors? How patients handle medical grievances. Law Soc Rev 1990;24:105-20.
4. Shapiro RS, Simpson DE, Lawrence SL, et al. A survey of sued and nonsued physicians and suing patients. Arch Intern Med 1989;149:2190-6.
5. Bismark MM. No-fault compensation in New Zealand: harmonizing compensation, accountability, and patient safety. Quality of Care Forum. Boston (MA): Harvard School of Public Health; 2005.
6. Paterson RJ. The patients' complaints system in New Zealand. Health Aff 2002;21:70-9.
7. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalised patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study 1. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370-6.
8. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38:261-71.
9. Davis PB, Lay-Yee R, Briant RJ, et al. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals 1: occurrence and impact N Z Med J 2002;115:U271.
10. Davis PB, Lay-Yee R, Fitzjohn J, et al. Compensation for medical injury in New Zealand: Does "no-fault" increase the level of claims making and reduce social and clinical selectivity? J Health Polit Policy Law 2002;27:833-54.
11. Thomas EJ, Lipsitz SR, Studdert DM, et al. The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:812-6.
12. Davis PB, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, et al. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals: principal findings from a national survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2001. Available: www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/ 7004be0c19a98f8a4C25692e007bf833 /d255C2525480c8a1cc2566120006cf25/$FILE/ AdverseEvents.pdf (accessed 2006 Aug 8).
13. Bismark MM, Dauer EA. Motivations for medico-legal action: lessons from New Zealand. J of Legal Med 2006;27:55-70.
14. Salmond C, Crampton P, Sutton F. Research report no 8. NZDep96 Index of Deprivation. Wellington: Health Services Research Centre; 1998.
15. Salmond C, Crampton P. NZDep2001 Index of Deprivation user's manual. Wellington (NZ): Wellington School of Medicine and Health Services; 2002. Available: www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf)Files/phi-users-manual/$file/phi- users-manual.pdf (accessed 2006 Aug 8).
16. Blakely T, Pearce N. Socio-economic position is more than just NZDep. N Z Med J 2002;115:109-11.
17. World Health Organization. Alliance for Patient Safety. London declaration. Patients for patient safety. London (UK): WHO; 2006. Available: www.who.int/entity/patientsafety/information_centre/ Final_London_Declaration_Feb06.pdf (accessed 2006 Aug 8).
18. Entwistle VA, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Advising patients about patient safety: current initiatives risk shifting responsibility. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005;31:483-94.
19. Witman AB, Park DM, Hardin SB. How do patients want physicians to handle mistakes? A survey of internal medicine patients in an academic setting. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:2565-9.
20. Banja J. Medical errors and medical narcissism. Sudbury (MA): Jones and Bartlett; 2005.
21. Mazor KM, Simon SR, Yood RA, et al. Health plan members' views about disclosure of medical errors. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:409-18.
22. Vincent JL. Information in the ICU: are we being honest with our patients? The results of a European questionnaire. Intensive Care Med 1998;24:1251-6.
23. Blendon RJ, DesRoches CM, Brodie M, et al. Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1933-40.
24. Danzon P. Medical malpractice: theory, evidence and public policy. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1985.
25. Moore PJ, Adler NE, Robertson PA. The effect of doctor-patient relations on medical patient perceptions and malpractice intentions. West J Med 2000;173:244-50.
26. Burstin HR, Johnson WG, Lipsitz SR, et al. Do the poor sue more? A case-control study of malpractice claims and socioeconomic status. JAMA 1993;270:1697-701.
27. Robson B, Reid P. Ethnicity matters: Maori perspectives. Wellington (NZ): Statistics New Zealand; 2001.
28. Dauer EA, Marcus LJ. Adapting mediation to link resolution of medical malpractice disputes with health care quality improvement Law Contemp Probl 1997;60:185-218.