[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
June 27, 1994

The Doctor-Patient Relationship and MalpracticeLessons From Plaintiff Depositions

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine and the Center for Human Interaction, Highland Hospital and the School of Dentistry, University of Rochester (NY) Program for Biopsychosocial Studies.

Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365-1370. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420120093010
Abstract

Background:  The current literature does not provide an answer to the question, "What prompts patients to sue doctors or hospitals?" Not all adverse outcomes result in suits, and threatened suits do not always involve adverse outcomes. The exploration of other factors has been hampered by the lack of a methodology to contact plaintiffs and elicit their views about their experience in delivered health care. This study employed the transcripts of discovery depositions of plaintiffs as a source of insight into the issues that prompted individuals to file a malpractice claim.

Methods:  This study is a descriptive series review of a convenience sample of 45 plaintiffs' depositions selected randomly from 67 depositions made available from settled malpractice suits filed between 1985 and 1987 against a large metropolitan medical center. Information extracted from each deposition included the alleged injury; the presence of the question, "Why are you suing?" and, if present, the answer; the presence of problematic relationship issues between providers and patients and/or families and, if present, the discourse supporting it; the presence of the question, "Did a health professional suggest maloccurrence?" and, if yes, who. Using a process of consensual validation, relationship issues were organized into groups of more generalized categories suggested by the data. Answers to the questions, "Why are you suing?" and "Who suggested maloccurrence?" are described.

Results:  Problematic relationship issues were identified in 71% of the depositions with an interrater reliability of 93.3%. Four themes emerged from the descriptive review of the 3787 pages of transcript: deserting the patient (32%), devaluing patient and/or family views (29%), delivering information poorly (26%), and failing to understand the patient and/or family perspective (13%). Thirty-one plaintiffs were asked if health professionals suggested maloccurrence. Fifty-four percent (n=17) responded affirmatively. The postoutcome-consulting specialist was named in 71% (n=12) of the depositions in which maloccurrence was allegedly suggested.

Conclusions:  In our sample, the decision to litigate was often associated with a perceived lack of caring and/or collaboration in the delivery of health care. The issues identified included perceived unavailability, discounting patient and/or family concerns, poor delivery of information, and lack of understanding the patient and/or family perspective. Particular attention should be paid to the postadverse-event consultant-patient interaction.(Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1365-1370)

References
1.
Brennan TA, Localio R, Laird NL.  Reliability and validity of judgements about adverse events suffered by hospitalized patients . Med Care. 1989;23:1148-1158.Article
2.
Brennan TA, Localio AR, Leape LL, et al.  Identification of adverse events occurring during hospitalization: a cross sectional study of litigation, quality assurance, and medical records at two teaching hospitals . Ann Intern Med. 1990; 112:221-226.Article
3.
Miller RH, Williams PC, Napolitana G, Schmied J.  Malpractice: a case-control study of claimants . J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5:244-248.Article
4.
Wooley FR, Kane RL, Hughes CC, Wright DD.  The effect of doctor-patient communication on satisfaction and outcome of care . Soc Sci Med. 1978;12:123-128.
5.
Messinger OJ.  The patient's perception of care: a factor in medical litigation . Can Fam Physician. 1989;35:133-135.
6.
Killila B.  Improving communications can prevent malpractice . Indiana Med. 1990:82:272-273.
7.
Sommers PA.  Malpractice risk and patients relations . J Fam Pract. 1985;20: 299-301.
8.
Hickson GB, Clayton EC, Githens PB, Sloan FA.  Factors that prompted families to file malpractice claims following perinatal injuries . JAMA. 1992;287:1359-1363.Article
9.
Cicourel A.  Interviews, surveys and the problem of ecological validity . Am Soc. 1972;17:11-20.
10.
Shapiro RS, Simpson DE, Lawrence SL.  A survey of sued and non-sued physicians and suing patients . Ann Intern Med. 1989;149:2190-2196.Article
11.
Sloan FA, Mergenhagen PM, Burfield B, Bovbjerg RR, Hassan M.  Medical malpractice experience of physicians: predictable or haphazard? JAMA. 1989;262: 3291-3297.Article
12.
Schwartz WB, Mendelson DN.  Physicians who have lost their malpractice insurance: their demographic characteristics and the surplus-lines companies that insure them . JAMA. 1989;262:1335-1341.Article
13.
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM.  Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results from the Harvard Medical Practice Study I . N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370-376.Article
14.
Leape LL. Brennan TA, Laird NM.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II . N Engl J Med. 1991; 324:377-384.Article
15.
Valente CM, Antlitz AM, Boyd MD, Troisi AJ.  The importance of physician-patient communication in reducing medical liability . Md Med J. 1988;37:75-78.
16.
Meyers AR.  Lumping it: the hidden denominator of the medical malpractice crisis . Am J Public Health. 1987;77:1544-1548.Article
17.
Marabell P, Fitzsimmons LW.  Understanding the powers of effective communication . Mich Med. 1989:88:38-39.
18.
Lester GW, Smith SG.  Listening and talking to patients: a remedy for malpractice suits . West J Med. 1993;158:268-272.
19.
Novack DH.  Therapeutic aspects of the clinical encounter . J Gen Intern Med. 1987:2:346-355.
20.
Barsky AJ.  Hidden reasons some patients visit doctors . Ann Intern Med. 1981; 94:492-498.Article
21.
Quill TE.  Recognizing and adjusting to barriers in doctor-patient communication . Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:51-57.Article
22.
Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B.  Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research . Ann Intern Med. 1978;88:251-258.Article
23.
Lazare A, Eisenthal S, Wasserman L.  The customer approach to patienthood: attending to patient requests in a walk-in clinic . Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1975; 32:553-558.Article
24.
Quill TE, Townsend P.  Bad news: delivery, dialogue and dilemmas . Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:463-468.Article
25.
Lazare A.  Shame and humiliation in the medical encounter . Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:1653-1658.Article
26.
American College of Physicians.  American College of Physicians Ethics Manual . Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:947-960.Article
×