Search

Background/Aim: Peri‐anaesthetic dental injuries (PDI) represent a major source of potential malpractice claims against anesthesiologists. Studies about the medico‐legal aspects of PDI have mainly focused on liability insurance cases thus not encompassing those cases brought to court. The aim of this study was to assess the medico‐legal issues of PDI‐related liability lawsuits in France. Material and Methods: A review of judicial decisions pertaining to PDI was conducted on a French legal database, spanning the period between January 2000 and October 2021. Characteristics of decisions, patients and anesthesiologists, peri‐operative care, dental injuries, and convictions were collected when available for analysis. Results: Twenty‐four judicial decisions fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. All cases of dental injuries took place during elective surgery, 16 in the private sector and 8 in the public sector. Most injuries concerned two or more teeth and the most predominant dental injuries were luxation or avulsion (70.8% of cases). Eight cases resulted in a final verdict in favor of the plaintiff, four in the private sector (conviction rate: 25%), and four in the public sector (conviction rate: 50%). The causes of conviction were either a lack of information (5/8), a breach in the standard of care or technical negligence (3/8). The average amount of indemnification for the plaintiff was 3614 Euros (3753 Euros in 2022 inflation‐adjusted Euros) excluding legal fees. Conclusions: The analysis of PDI‐related liability lawsuits shows that medico‐legal issues differ from those of PDI‐related insurance claims. Avulsion and luxation of multiple anterior teeth during elective surgery appear to be a risk factor for liability lawsuits. In addition, inadequacy of patient information about PDI‐risk seems to be a risk factor for conviction. Lastly, dental injuries are less at risk of civil conviction than other anesthesia‐related damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: Gastrointestinal endoscopy cases make up the largest portion of out of operating room malpractice claims involving anesthesiologists. To date, there has been no closed claims analysis specifically focusing on the claims from the endoscopy suite. We aim to identify associated case characteristics and contributing factors.Design: Retrospective review of closed claims.Setting: Multi-institutional setting of hospitals that submit data to the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System, a database representing approximately 30% of annual malpractice cases in the United States.Patients: A total of 58 claims in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016.Interventions: Gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.Measurements: We analyzed associated factors for each case as well as payments, and severity scores.Main Results: There was a difference in the percent of cases that resulted in payment by procedure type, with 91% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cases resulting in payment compared with 37.5% of colonoscopy cases, 25% of combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/colonoscopy cases, 21.4% of EGD cases and 0.0% of endoscopic ultrasound cases (P = 0.0008). Oversedation was a possible contributing factor in 62.5% of cases. The mean payment for all claims involving anesthesiologists in the endoscopy suite was $99,754.Conclusions: There are differences in the rates of payment of malpractice claims between procedures. ERCPs made up a disproportionate percentage of the total amount paid to patients. While a significant percent of cases involved possible oversedation, these errors were compounded by other factors, such as failure to resuscitate or recognize the acute clinical change. With medically complex patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, it is critical to have well prepared anesthesia providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]