Assessing legislative potential to institute error transparency: a state comparison of malpractice claims rates

Assessing legislative potential to institute error transparency: a state comparison of malpractice claims rates.
Perez B, DiDona T. J Healthc Qual. 2010;32:36-41.

Most preventable medical errors are still never disclosed fully to the patient. In order to encourage transparency in error disclosure, many states have enacted apology laws, which prohibit "expressions of sympathy" (but not admissions of fault) from being used as evidence in a lawsuit, and others have enacted mandatory error reporting statutes. This study sought to examine the relationship between apology laws, error reporting laws, and malpractice rates on a state-by-state basis. Although significant variation exists in malpractice claims rates across states, no relationship was found between claims rates and enactment of either or both types of disclosure statutes. Although proponents of transparency have argued that full disclosure of errors may decrease malpractice suits, this argument remains controversial.


Available at: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/resource.aspx?resourceID=18227


Assessing Legislative Potential to Institute Error Transparency: A State Comparison of Malpractice Claims Rates
Bianca Perez 1 , Toni DiDona 1
1 Carlos Albizu University in Miami, Florida
Correspondence to For more information on this article, contact Bianca Perez at biancaperez79@gmail.com.
Copyright © 2010 National Association for Healthcare Quality
KEYWORDS
claims management • legislation • organizational change
ABSTRACT
Abstract: The prevalence of medical errors and malpractice claims has been attributed to deficits in error reporting and disclosure. Increasingly, states are adopting error reporting and apology laws to reduce these information gaps thereby instituting error-transparent medical cultures. At the same time, doubts have been expressed about the capacity for legislation to influence medical professionals. In order to assess legislative potential to establish error transparency, a cross-sectional research design compared differences in malpractice claim rates among states adopting different legislative approaches. Two one-way analysis of variance tests were performed. The first analysis indicated that there are no significant mean differences in claims rates between states enacting only an apology law, only an error reporting law, both laws, and neither law, F (3,47)=1.13, p=.34. The second analysis indicated that there are no significant mean differences in claims rates between states enacting both laws, either law, and neither law, F (2,48)=1.08, p=.35. The findings show that legislation does not have a significant capacity to regulate malpractice claims rates. This suggests that laws governing error transparency are too remote from the delivery of healthcare services to regulate disclosure behavior and that fundamental changes in our medical culture should be initiated at an organizational level.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123213991/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

-----------------------------
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1945-1474.2009.00066.x About DOI