OBJECTIVE: To identify specific communication behaviors associated with malpractice history in primary care physicians and surgeons. DESIGN: Comparison of communication behaviors of "claims" vs "no-claims" physicians using audiotapes of 10 routine office visits per physician. SETTINGS: One hundred twenty-four physician offices in Oregon and Colorado. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine primary care physicians (general internists and family practitioners) and 65 general and orthopedic surgeons and their patients. Physicians were classified into no-claims or claims (> or =2 lifetime claims) groups based on insurance company records and were stratified by years in practice and specialty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Audiotape analysis using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. RESULTS: Significant differences in communication behaviors of no-claims and claims physicians were identified in primary care physicians but not in surgeons. Compared with claims primary care physicians, no-claims primary care physicians used more statements of orientation (educating patients about what to expect and the flow of a visit), laughed and used humor more, and tended to use more facilitation (soliciting patients' opinions, checking understanding, and encouraging patients to talk). No-claims primary care physicians spent longer in routine visits than claims primary care physicians (mean, 18.3 vs 15.0 minutes), and the length of the visit had an independent effect in predicting claims status. The multivariable model for primary care improved the prediction of claims status by 57% above chance (90% confidence interval, 33%-73%). Multivariable models did not significantly improve prediction of claims status for surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Routine physician-patient communication differs in primary care physicians with vs without prior malpractice claims. In contrast, the study did not find communication behaviors to distinguish between claims vs no-claims surgeons. The study identifies specific and teachable communication behaviors associated with fewer malpractice claims for primary care physicians. Physicians can use these findings as they seek to improve communication and decrease malpractice risk. Malpractice insurers can use this information to guide malpractice risk prevention and education for primary care physicians but should not assume that it is appropriate to teach similar behaviors to other specialty groups.
<h3>Objective.</h3> —To identify specific communication behaviors associated with malpractice history in primary care physicians and surgeons. <h3>Design.</h3> —Comparison of communication behaviors of "claims" vs "no-claims" physicians using audiotapes of 10 routine office visits per physician. <h3>Settings.</h3> —One hundred twenty-four physician offices in Oregon and Colorado. <h3>Participants.</h3> —Fifty-nine primary care physicians (general internists and family practitioners) and 65 general and orthopedic surgeons and their patients. Physicians were classified into no-claims or claims (≥2 lifetime claims) groups based on insurance company records and were stratified by years in practice and specialty. <h3>Main Outcome Measures.</h3> —Audiotape analysis using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. <h3>Results.</h3> —Significant differences in communication behaviors of no-claims and claims physicians were identified in primary care physicians but not in surgeons. Compared with claims primary care physicians, no-claims primary care physicians used more statements of orientation (educating patients about what to expect and the flow of a visit), laughed and used humor more, and tended to use more facilitation (soliciting patients' opinions, checking understanding, and encouraging patients to talk). No-claims primary care physicians spent longer in routine visits than claims primary care physicians (mean, 18.3 vs 15.0 minutes), and the length of the visit had an independent effect in predicting claims status. The multivariable model for primary care improved the prediction of claims status by 57% above chance (90% confidence interval, 33%-73%). Multivariable models did not significantly improve prediction of claims status for surgeons. <h3>Conclusions.</h3> —Routine physician-patient communication differs in primary care physicians with vs without prior malpractice claims. In contrast, the study did not find communication behaviors to distinguish between claims vs no-claims surgeons. The study identifies specific and teachable communication behaviors associated with fewer malpractice claims for primary care physicians. Physicians can use these findings as they seek to improve communication and decrease malpractice risk. Malpractice insurers can use this information to guide malpractice risk prevention and education for primary care physicians but should not assume that it is appropriate to teach similar behaviors to other specialty groups.
BACKGROUND: In the current debate over tort reform, critics of the medical malpractice system charge that frivolous litigation--claims that lack evidence of injury, substandard care, or both--is common and costly. METHODS: Trained physicians reviewed a random sample of 1452 closed malpractice claims from five liability insurers to determine whether a medical injury had occurred and, if so, whether it was due to medical error. We analyzed the prevalence, characteristics, litigation outcomes, and costs of claims that lacked evidence of error. RESULTS: For 3 percent of the claims, there were no verifiable medical injuries, and 37 percent did not involve errors. Most of the claims that were not associated with errors (370 of 515 [72 percent]) or injuries (31 of 37 [84 percent]) did not result in compensation; most that involved injuries due to error did (653 of 889 [73 percent]). Payment of claims not involving errors occurred less frequently than did the converse form of inaccuracy--nonpayment of claims associated with errors. When claims not involving errors were compensated, payments were significantly lower on average than were payments for claims involving errors (313,205 dollars vs. 521,560 dollars, P=0.004). Overall, claims not involving errors accounted for 13 to 16 percent of the system's total monetary costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including those involving lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of total administrative costs. CONCLUSIONS: Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.
Comorbidity, additional disease beyond the condition under study that increases a patient’s total burden of illness, is one dimension of health status. For investigators working with observational data obtained from administrative databases, comorbidity assessment may be a useful and important means of accounting for differences in patients’ underlying health status. There are multiple ways of measuring comorbidity. This paper provides an overview of current approaches to and issues in assessing comorbidity using claims data, with a particular focus on established indices and the SEER-Medicare database. In addition, efforts to improve measurement of comorbidity using claims data are described, including augmentation of claims data with medical record, patient self-report, or health services utilization data; incorporation of claims data from sources other than inpatient claims; and exploration of alternative conditions, indices, or ways of grouping conditions. Finally, caveats about claims data and areas for future research in claims-based comorbidity assessment are discussed. Although the use of claims databases such as SEER-Medicare for health services and outcomes research has become increasingly common, investigators must be cognizant of the limitations of comorbidity measures derived from these data sources in capturing and controlling for differences in patient health status. The assessment of comorbidity using claims data is a complex and evolving area of investigation.
Importance: Estimates from claims-based analyses suggest that the incidence of sepsis is increasing and mortality rates from sepsis are decreasing. However, estimates from claims data may lack clinical fidelity and can be affected by changing diagnosis and coding practices over time. Objective: To estimate the US national incidence of sepsis and trends using detailed clinical data from the electronic health record (EHR) systems of diverse hospitals. Design, Setting, and Population: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to 409 academic, community, and federal hospitals from 2009-2014. Exposures: Sepsis was identified using clinical indicators of presumed infection and concurrent acute organ dysfunction, adapting Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria for objective and consistent EHR-based surveillance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sepsis incidence, outcomes, and trends from 2009-2014 were calculated using regression models and compared with claims-based estimates using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for severe sepsis or septic shock. Case-finding criteria were validated against Sepsis-3 criteria using medical record reviews. Results: A total of 173 690 sepsis cases (mean age, 66.5 [SD, 15.5] y; 77 660 [42.4%] women) were identified using clinical criteria among 2 901 019 adults admitted to study hospitals in 2014 (6.0% incidence). Of these, 26 061 (15.0%) died in the hospital and 10 731 (6.2%) were discharged to hospice. From 2009-2014, sepsis incidence using clinical criteria was stable (+0.6% relative change/y [95% CI, -2.3% to 3.5%], P = .67) whereas incidence per claims increased (+10.3%/y [95% CI, 7.2% to 13.3%], P < .001). In-hospital mortality using clinical criteria declined (-3.3%/y [95% CI, -5.6% to -1.0%], P = .004), but there was no significant change in the combined outcome of death or discharge to hospice (-1.3%/y [95% CI, -3.2% to 0.6%], P = .19). In contrast, mortality using claims declined significantly (-7.0%/y [95% CI, -8.8% to -5.2%], P < .001), as did death or discharge to hospice (-4.5%/y [95% CI, -6.1% to -2.8%], P < .001). Clinical criteria were more sensitive in identifying sepsis than claims (69.7% [95% CI, 52.9% to 92.0%] vs 32.3% [95% CI, 24.4% to 43.0%], P < .001), with comparable positive predictive value (70.4% [95% CI, 64.0% to 76.8%] vs 75.2% [95% CI, 69.8% to 80.6%], P = .23). Conclusions and Relevance: In clinical data from 409 hospitals, sepsis was present in 6% of adult hospitalizations, and in contrast to claims-based analyses, neither the incidence of sepsis nor the combined outcome of death or discharge to hospice changed significantly between 2009-2014. The findings also suggest that EHR-based clinical data provide more objective estimates than claims-based data for sepsis surveillance.
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: By matching the medical records of a random sample of 31,429 patients hospitalized in New York State in 1984 with statewide data on medical-malpractice claims, we identified patients who had filed claims against physicians and hospitals. These results were then compared with our findings, based on a review of the same medical records, regarding the incidence of injuries to patients caused by medical management (adverse events). RESULTS: We identified 47 malpractice claims among 30,195 patients' records located on our initial visits to the hospitals, and 4 claims among 580 additional records located during follow-up visits. The overall rate of claims per discharge (weighted) was 0.13 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.076 to 0.18 percent). Of the 280 patients who had adverse events caused by medical negligence as defined by the study protocol, 8 filed malpractice claims (weighted rate, 1.53 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0 to 3.2 percent). By contrast, our estimate of the statewide ratio of adverse events caused by negligence (27,179) to malpractice claims (3570) is 7.6 to 1. This relative frequency overstates the chances that a negligent adverse event will produce a claim, however, because most of the events for which claims were made in the sample did not meet our definition of adverse events due to negligence. CONCLUSIONS: Medical-malpractice litigation infrequently compensates patients injured by medical negligence and rarely identifies, and holds providers accountable for, substandard care.
This report offers an initial systematic description of the global misinformation concerning the novel coronavirus. Through a quantitative content analysis of a sample of claims rated as false by professional fact checkers around the world, it asks three main research questions: what types of misinformation are most common, what are the motivation behind that content, and what main claims are made. To answer the first two questions, the report modifies and employs two existing measures. To answer the third and to classify the claims made, it inductively generates a unique typology through several iterations of coding and discussion. The corpus of misinformation is comprised of a random sample of 15% of the fact checks completed through Monday March 23rd 2020 from a combined population of fact checks from the IFCN (International Fact Checking Network) and Google fact checking network.
This guidance describes how the FDA evaluates patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used as effectiveness endpoints in clinical trials. It also describes our current thinking on how sponsors can develop and use study results measured by PRO instruments to support claims in approved product labeling (see appendix point 1). It does not address the use of PRO instruments for purposes beyond evaluation of claims made about a drug or medical product in its labeling. By explicitly addressing the review issues identified in this guidance, sponsors can increase the efficiency of their endpoint discussions with the FDA during the product development process, streamline the FDA's review of PRO endpoint adequacy, and provide optimal information about the patient's perspective of treatment benefit at the time of product approval. A PRO is a measurement of any aspect of a patient's health status that comes directly from the patient (i.e., without the interpretation of the patient's responses by a physician or anyone else). In clinical trials, a PRO instrument can be used to measure the impact of an intervention on one or more aspects of patients' health status, hereafter referred to as PRO concepts, ranging from the purely symptomatic (response of a headache) to more complex concepts (e.g., ability to carry out activities of daily living), to extremely complex concepts such as quality of life, which is widely understood to be a multidomain concept with physical, psychological, and social components. Data generated by a PRO instrument can provide evidence of a treatment benefit from the patient perspective. For this data to be meaningful, however, there should be evidence that the PRO instrument effectively measures the particular concept that is studied. Generally, findings measured by PRO instruments may be used to support claims in approved product labeling if the claims are derived from adequate and well-controlled investigations that use PRO instruments that reliably and validly measure the specific concepts at issue. The glossary defines many of the terms used in this guidance. In particular, the term instrument refers to the actual questions or items contained in a questionnaire or interview schedule along with all the additional information and documentation that supports the use of these items in producing a PRO measure (e.g., interviewer training and instructions, scoring and interpretation manual). The term conceptual framework refers to how items are grouped according to subconcepts or domains (e.g., the item walking without help may be grouped with another item, walking with difficulty, within the domain of ambulation, and ambulation may be further grouped into the concept of physical ability). FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidance documents describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in Agency guidance documents means that something is suggested or recommended but not required. First publication of the Draft Guidance by the Food and Drug Administration--February 2006.
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The incidence and prognosis of whiplash injury from motor vehicle collisions may be related to eligibility for compensation for pain and suffering. On January 1, 1995, the tort-compensation system for traffic injuries, which included payments for pain and suffering, in Saskatchewan, Canada, was changed to a no-fault system, which did not include such payments. To determine whether this change was associated with a decrease in claims and improved recovery after whiplash injury, we studied a population-based cohort of persons who filed insurance claims for traffic injuries between July 1, 1994, and December 31, 1995. RESULTS: Of 9006 potentially eligible claimants, 7462 (83 percent) met our criteria for whiplash injury. The six-month cumulative incidence of claims was 417 per 100,000 persons in the last six months of the tort system, as compared with 302 and 296 per 100,000, respectively, in the first and second six-month periods of the no-fault system. The incidence of claims was higher for women than for men in each period; the incidence decreased by 43 percent for men and by 15 percent for women between the tort period and the two no-fault periods combined. The median time from the date of injury to the closure of a claim decreased from 433 days (95 percent confidence interval, 409 to 457) to 194 days (95 percent confidence interval, 182 to 206) and 203 days (95 percent confidence interval, 193 to 213), respectively. The intensity of neck pain, the level of physical functioning, and the presence or absence of depressive symptoms were strongly associated with the time to claim closure in both systems. CONCLUSIONS: The elimination of compensation for pain and suffering is associated with a decreased incidence and improved prognosis of whiplash injury.
BACKGROUND: Although missed and delayed diagnoses have become an important patient safety concern, they remain largely unstudied, especially in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for investigating missed and delayed diagnoses, advance understanding of their causes, and identify opportunities for prevention. DESIGN: Retrospective review of 307 closed malpractice claims in which patients alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ambulatory setting. SETTING: 4 malpractice insurance companies. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic errors associated with adverse outcomes for patients, process breakdowns, and contributing factors. RESULTS: A total of 181 claims (59%) involved diagnostic errors that harmed patients. Fifty-nine percent (106 of 181) of these errors were associated with serious harm, and 30% (55 of 181) resulted in death. For 59% (106 of 181) of the errors, cancer was the diagnosis involved, chiefly breast (44 claims [24%]) and colorectal (13 claims [7%]) cancer. The most common breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (100 of 181 [55%]), failure to create a proper follow-up plan (81 of 181 [45%]), failure to obtain an adequate history or perform an adequate physical examination (76 of 181 [42%]), and incorrect interpretation of diagnostic tests (67 of 181 [37%]). The leading factors that contributed to the errors were failures in judgment (143 of 181 [79%]), vigilance or memory (106 of 181 [59%]), knowledge (86 of 181 [48%]), patient-related factors (84 of 181 [46%]), and handoffs (36 of 181 [20%]). The median number of process breakdowns and contributing factors per error was 3 for both (interquartile range, 2 to 4). LIMITATIONS: Reviewers were not blinded to the litigation outcomes, and the reliability of the error determination was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic errors that harm patients are typically the result of multiple breakdowns and individual and system factors. Awareness of the most common types of breakdowns and factors could help efforts to identify and prioritize strategies to prevent diagnostic errors.
Starting from a critique of protest event and political discourse analysis, we propose an extended methodological approach that has the quantitative rigor of event analysis but also retrieves the qualitative discursive elements of claims. Our political claims approach extends the sample of contentious actions beyond protest event analysis by coding institutional and civil society actors, and conventional and discursive action forms, in addition to protests by movement actors, This redefines the research object to acts of political claims making in a multi-organizational field. We use examples from a research project on mobilization about migration and ethnic relations in Britain and Germany to demonstrate the analytic gains that are possible with our approach. By situating protest and social movements, not just theoretically but also methodologically, in a wider context of political claims making, we are in a better position to follow the recent calls for more integrated approaches, which place protest within multi-organizational fields, link it to political opportunities and outcomes, and are sensitive to discursive messages.
Abstract As organizations seek to communicate with consumers who are concerned about the environment, advertisements containing environmental claims are becoming more prominent. While much has been written about environmental advertising, this phenomenon has seldom been examined systematically. This paper presents an empirical study which combines two classification schemes to create a matrix that identifies different types of environmental claims and the likelihood that such claims will be judged as misleading and/or deceptive. Results suggest that those claims which extol the environmental benefits of products and those that are designed to enhance the environmental image of an organization are most prone to be considered misleading and/or deceptive. Methods for improving environmental advertising are suggested.
BACKGROUND: Adjusting for large numbers of covariates ascertained from patients' health care claims data may improve control of confounding, as these variables may collectively be proxies for unobserved factors. Here, we develop and test an algorithm that empirically identifies candidate covariates, prioritizes covariates, and integrates them into a propensity-score-based confounder adjustment model. METHODS: We developed a multistep algorithm to implement high-dimensional proxy adjustment in claims data. Steps include (1) identifying data dimensions, eg, diagnoses, procedures, and medications; (2) empirically identifying candidate covariates; (3) assessing recurrence of codes; (4) prioritizing covariates; (5) selecting covariates for adjustment; (6) estimating the exposure propensity score; and (7) estimating an outcome model. This algorithm was tested in Medicare claims data, including a study on the effect of Cox-2 inhibitors on reduced gastric toxicity compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). RESULTS: In a population of 49,653 new users of Cox-2 inhibitors or nonselective NSAIDs, a crude relative risk (RR) for upper GI toxicity (RR = 1.09 [95% confidence interval = 0.91-1.30]) was initially observed. Adjusting for 15 predefined covariates resulted in a possible gastroprotective effect (0.94 [0.78-1.12]). A gastroprotective effect became stronger when adjusting for an additional 500 algorithm-derived covariates (0.88 [0.73-1.06]). Results of a study on the effect of statin on reduced mortality were similar. Using the algorithm adjustment confirmed a null finding between influenza vaccination and hip fracture (1.02 [0.85-1.21]). CONCLUSIONS: In typical pharmacoepidemiologic studies, the proposed high-dimensional propensity score resulted in improved effect estimates compared with adjustment limited to predefined covariates, when benchmarked against results expected from randomized trials.
Adverse outcomes associated with respiratory events constitute the single largest class of injury in the American Society of Anesthesiology Closed Claims Study (522 of 1541 cases; 34%). Death or brain damage occurred in 85% of cases. The median cost of settlement or jury award was +200,000. Most outcomes (72%) were considered preventable with better monitoring. Three mechanisms of injury accounted for three-fourths of the adverse respiratory events: inadequate ventilation (196; 38%), esophageal intubation (94; 18%), and difficult tracheal intubation (87; 17%). Inadequate ventilation was used to describe claims in which it was evident that insufficient gas exchange had produced the adverse outcome, but it was not possible to identify the exact cause. This group was characterized by the highest proportion of cases in which care was considered substandard (90%). The esophageal intubation group was notable for a recurring diagnostic failure: in 48% of cases where auscultation of breath sounds was performed and documented, this test led to the erroneous conclusion that the endotracheal tube was correctly located in the trachea. Claims for difficult tracheal intubation were distinguished by a comparatively small proportion of cases (36%) in which the outcome was considered preventable with better monitoring. A better understanding of respiratory risks may require investigative protocols that initiate data collection immediately upon the recognition of a critical incident or adverse outcome.
The sociological literature on global environmental change emphasizes the processes by which the problem of global warming is socially constructed. However, the opposing efforts to construct the &quot;non-problematicity &quot; of global warming advanced by the conservative movement are largely ignored. Utilizing recent work on framing processes in the social movements literature and claims-making from the social problems literature, this paper analyzes the counter-claims promoted by the conservative movement between 1990 and 1997 as it mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. A thematic content analysis of publications cir-culated on the web sites of prominent conservative think tanks reveals three major counter-claims. First, the movement criticized the evidentiary basis of global warming as weak, if not entirely wrong. Second, the move-ment argued that global warming will have substantial benefits if it occurs. Third, the movement warned that proposed action to ameliorate global warming would do more harm than good. In short, the conservative movement asserted that, while the science of global warming appears to be growing more and more uncertain, the harmful effects of global warming policy are becoming increasingly certain. In order to better understand the controversy over global warming, future research should pay attention to the influence of the conservative movement by identifying the crucial roles of conservative foundations, conservative think tanks, and sympathetic &quot;skeptic &quot; scientists in undermining the growing scientific consensus over the reality of global warming.
This paper develops a general equilibrium model of the allocation of resources among appropriative and productive activities. The model emphasizes the distinction between offensive weapons, which are the instruments of predation, and fortifications, which provide defense against predation. The analysis of this model shows how the equilibrium security of claims to property is determined. The analysis focuses on the possibility of a nonaggressive equilibrium in which no resources are allocated to offensive weapons and claims to property are fully secure. The authors also analyze the complex relation between economic welfare and the security of claims to property. Copyright 1995 by University of Chicago Press.
The International Law of Investment Claims considers the distinct principles governing the prosecution of a claim in investment treaty arbitration. The principles are codified as 54 'rules' of general application on the juridical foundations of investment treaty arbitration, the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the admissibility of claims and the laws applicable to different aspects of the investment dispute. The commentary to each proposed rule contains a critical analysis of the investment treaty jurisprudence and makes extensive reference to the decisions of other international courts and tribunals, as well as to the relevant experience of municipal legal orders. Solutions are elaborated in respect of the most intractable problems that have arisen in the cases, including: the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an investment agreement with the host state; reliance on the MFN clause in relation to jurisdictional provisions; and, the legitimate scope of derivative claims by shareholders.
In 2008 we published an article in this journal entitled Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. The article was based on a major literature review that was summarised in a paper published by the National College for School Leadership in England. \nBoth the National College paper and our subsequent article proved to be far more popular than we anticipated and both have been extensively cited over the past 10 years. This article revisits each of the seven claims, summarising what was said about each in the original publications
ABSTRACT This paper derives an arbitrage‐free interest rate movements model (AR model). This model takes the complete term structure as given and derives the subsequent stochastic movement of the term structure such that the movement is arbitrage free. We then show that the AR model can be used to price interest rate contingent claims relative to the observed complete term structure of interest rates. This paper also studies the behavior and the economics of the model. Our approach can be used to price a broad range of interest rate contingent claims, including bond options and callable bonds.
Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1996) contested four propositions that they incorrectly called “claims of situated learning.” This response argues that the important differences between situative and cognitive perspectives are not addressed by discussion of these imputed claims. Instead, there are significant differences in the framing assumptions of the two perspectives. I clarify these differences by inferring questions to which Anderson et al.'s discussion provided answers, by identifying presuppositions of those questions made by Anderson et al., and by stating the different presuppositions and questions that I believe are consistent with the situative perspective. The evidence given by Anderson et al. is compatible with the framing assumptions of situativity; therefore, deciding between the perspectives will involve broader considerations than those presented in their article. These considerations include expectations about which framework offers the better prospect for developing a unified scientific account of activity considered from both social and individual points of view, and which framework supports research that will inform discussions of educational practice more productively. The cognitive perspective takes the theory of individual cognition as its basis and builds toward a broader theory by incrementally developing analyses of additional components that are considered as contexts. The situative perspective takes the theory of social and ecological interaction as its basis and builds toward a more comprehensive theory by developing increasingly detailed analyses of information structures in the contents of people's interactions. While I believe that the situative framework is more promising, the best strategy for the field is for both perspectives to be developed energetically.