Medical malpractice as reflected by the forensic evaluation of 4450 autopsies☆
Introduction
Clear data on the epidemiology of medical malpractice are missing, at least for Germany [12], [21], [22]. Furthermore data on the frequency of medical malpractice claims – both in penal and in civil law – are not available (Table 1).
For Germany it is estimated, that only 1500–2000 cases per year are investigated by the public prosecutor, these are mainly cases where death is thought to be due to medical malpractice and cause and manner of death have to be cleared by a medico-legal autopsy. In penal law it is estimated that one investigation by the public prosecutor is performed on 60,000 inhabitants, one lawsuit filed on 90,000 inhabitants. Only eight cases per year are brought to a penal court with four convictions and four stays of proceedings [47].
For civil law data on the frequency of medical malpractice claims are also not available, estimations speak of about 15,000 claims per year [22], [33].
Every doctor is obliged to have a liability insurance, data from the liability insurance companies are, however, not available as well [27], [64], [71], [74], [75], [76]. One insurance company with 108,000 insured doctors reported about 4500 complaints a year with a settlement of cases in 30%, 10% go to a civil court and in 4% medical malpractice is confirmed at court.
In Germany most claims of medical malpractice are dealt with at the arbitration committees of the medical councils (Table 2) [2], [16], [17], [46], [53]. More than 30 years ago the medical councils founded these arbitration committees to make medical malpractice claims possible without applying to the court. More than 10,000 cases per year are dealt with at the arbitration committees and in 30% patient claims are confirmed. The data of the arbitration committees of the medical councils are meanwhile published once a year on a national basis (MERS: Medical Error Reporting System) [2].
However, from epidemiological and health care research important data on the frequency of adverse events (AE), preventable adverse events (PAE) and negligent adverse events (NAE) are available [6], [25], [56], [57], [58], [59], [66], [67]. According to a systematic review of the German Alliance of Patient Safety AE can be expected in 5–10%, PAE in 2–4%, NAE in about 1% and lethal outcome in about 0.1% of hospitalized patients. Thus, on a yearly basis of 17.5 million hospitalized patients in Germany 880,000–1,750,000 AE, 700,000 PAE, 175,000 NAE and 17,500 deaths could be expected. This would mean that in Germany nearly as many people would die due to consequences of medical diagnoses or therapies than due to colon cancer (20,200), breast cancer (18,000), pneumonia (17,800) and traffic accidents (7700). Similar data have already been published for the UK (Fig. 1).
However, the data from epidemiological research are not compatible with figures from civil and penal law and they were questioned after their publication [31], [32], [35], [37], [47], [58], [59]. Nevertheless they are in accordance with other international studies: e.g. the Institute of Medicine stated that up to 98,000 patients die of preventable medical errors in American hospitals each year [25]. Among 850,000 individuals dying in US hospitals per year a major diagnosis remains clinically undetected in at least 8.4% (71,400 deaths). Furthermore 34,850 patients would have survived until discharge had misdiagnoses not occurred [62], [63]. One of the Institute's of Medicine recommendations called therefore for a mandatory reporting system for deaths and serious injuries [25]. Medico-legal death investigation systems are one component of this approach. These figures on the frequency of AE, NAE, PAE and deaths – this has to be kept in mind – were calculated from epidemiological- and health care research studies.
Data on malpractice cases are furthermore available from the files of the institutes of forensic medicine [1], [5], [9], [10], [15], [20], [28], [31], [32], [33], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [44], [50], [52], [54], [60]. As the arbitration committees are mainly dealing with living patients, lethal cases are found within the material of the arbitration committees only in 2.7% of all cases.
The best available data source on lethal cases is in the files of the institutes of forensic medicine. This subgroup is of special importance since death is the most severe outcome of medical malpractice and the reproach to have caused the death of a patient by medical malpractice is the most severe malpractice claim.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
In Germany not only reliable data on medical malpractice charges in penal law are missing but also data on lethal cases. A few studies of data from the files of the institutes of forensic medicine were carried out in the past [1], [9], [10], [28], [29], [38], [39], [40], [43], [44]. To obtain a broader data basis we carried out a standardized retrospective analysis on medical malpractice claims in lethal cases for the German Federal Ministry of Health [51], [52]. This multicentre analysis was
Frequency of autopsies due to medical malpractice claims
The autopsy rate in the participating institutes of forensic medicine is differing widely. E.g. in Munich in the study period more than 21,000 autopsies were carried out, in Cologne only 1274. While in Munich 669 autopsies were due to medical malpractice claims, in Cologne nearly one quarter of all autopsies were due to malpractice claims. The percentage of autopsies due to malpractice claims on all autopsies is varying widely between 1.9 and 20%. High rates of autopsies due to medical
Discussion
Medical malpractice claims in penal law have increased over the years from 300 to 600 cases in the cooperating institutes. However, there is not an increase or boom of medical malpractice claims like in civil law [40], [72]. For Germany about 1000–1500 autopsies per year due to medical malpractice claims can be expected today [32], [47].
An interesting information is that the majority of cases comes to the attention of the public prosecution by certifying the manner of death as unnatural or
Conclusions
Autopsies are the essential basis for determining the cause of death, medical negligence and causality of negligence for cause of death. Without autopsy lethal cases cannot be judged in an appropriate way. Autopsies are, however, not only the essential basis for expert evidence in a practical case but also for preventing similar cases. They provide data on events that are significant – serious injuries – and that are much more comprehensive than provided to most reporting systems. Autopsy
References (77)
- et al.
Fatal myeloencephalopathy due to accidental intrathecal vincristin administration—a report of two cases
Forensic Sci. Int.
(2001) - et al.
Analyse arztstrafrechtlicher Ermittlungsverfahren der Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen zwischen 1978 und 1981
Z. Rechtsmed.
(1984) Tätigkeit der Gutachterkommissionen und Schlichtungsstellen in Deutschland
- et al.
The role of the autopsy in medical malpractice cases. I. A review of 99 appeals court decisions
Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.
(2002) - et al.
The role of the autopsy in medical malpractice cases. II. Controversy related to autopsy performance and reporting
Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.
(2002) Erfassung tödlicher Medizinschadensfälle mit dem Deutschen Forensischen Sektionsregister (“Obductio“)
- et al.
Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice ligitation
N. Engl. J. Med.
(1996) - Bundesärztekammer, Stellungnahme zur “Autopsie” – Kurzfassung, Dtsch Ärztebl 102 (2005) B2993–B3001. Langfassung unter:...
- Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation REC7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on...
- et al.
Rechtsmedizinische Gutachten in arztstrafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren
Medizinrecht
(1999)
Medical malpractice charges in Germany—role of the forensic pathologist in the preliminary criminal proceeding
J. Forensic Sci.
Erstickung nach misslungener Anlage eines zentralen Venenkatheters
Rechtsmedizin
Drug-related deaths in a department of internal medicine
Arch. Intern. Med.
Medizinschadensfälle in der ärztlichen Fortbildung
Auswertung der Ergebnisse der Gutachterkommission für Fragen ärztlicher Haftpflicht bei der Landesärztekammer Baden-Württemberg für das Jahr 2002
MedR
Die Ergebnisse der Gutachterkommissionen und Schlichtungsstellen in Deutschland – ein bundesweiter Vergleich
MedR
Arzneitherapie(un)sicherheit. Notwendige Schritte zur Verbesserung der Patientensicherheit bei medikamentöser Therapie
Deutsches Ärzteblatt
Staatsanwaltschaftliche Ermittlungen gegen Ärzte bei Verdacht eines “Kunstfehlers”
DRiZ
Medizinische Behandlungsfehler in Deutschland
Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes
Verbesserung der Datenlage zu Medizinschadensfällen und Behandlungsfehlern bzw. Behandlungsfehlervorwürfen
Postoperative death and malpractice suits: is autopsy useful?
Anesth. Analg.
Diversität und Kerndatensatz – Bericht aus der Arbeitsgruppe Behandlungsfehlerregister
Behandlungsfehler-Management in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung am Beispiel der AOK
Der iatrogene Schaden
Rechtliche Aspekte der Arzneimitteltherapie – Aufklärung über Arzneimittelneben- und -wechselwirkungen
Die ärztliche Leichenschau. Rechtsgrundlagen, praktische Durchführung, Problemlösungen. 2. Aufl.
Autoptisch bestätigte Behandlungsfehler
Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
Ärztliche Leichenschau und Todesbescheinigung
Dt Ärztebl
Behandlungsfehler und Medizinschadensfälle – nicht nur ein Thema der Rechtsmedizin. Editorial
Rechtsmedizin
Behandlungsfehlervorwürfe in der Notfall- und Rettungsmedizin sowie in der Notaufnahme
Notfall und Rettungsmedizin
Medizinschadensfälle und Patientensicherheit. Häufigkeit, Begutachtung, Prophylaxe
Fahrlässige Tötung durch medikamentöse Therapie
Rechtsmedizin
Cited by (0)
- ☆
Supported by grants from the Federal Ministry of Health.