Maternal-fetal medicine physicians (MFMp) and neonatal-perinatal medicine physicians (NPMp) caring for premature infants and their families are exposed to significant risk for malpractice actions. Effective communication practices have been implicated to decrease litigious intentions but the extent of miscommunication as a cause of legal action is essentially unknown in this population. Analysis of communication-related allegations (CRAs) may help toward improving patient care and physician-patient relationships as well as decrease litigation risks.
We retrospectively reviewed the Westlaw database, a primary online legal research resource used by United States lawyers and legal professionals, for malpractice cases against physicians involving premature infants. Inclusion criteria were: 22 to 36 weeks gestational age, cases related to peripartum events through infant discharge and follow-up, and legal records with detailed factual narratives.
The search yielded 736 legal records, of which 167 met full inclusion criteria. A CRA was identified in 29% (49/167) of included cases. MFMp and/or NPMp were named in 104 and 54 cases, respectively. CRAs were identified in 26% (27/104) and 35% (19/54) of MFMp- and NPMp-named cases, respectively, with a majority involving physician-family for both specialties (81% and 74%, respectively). Physician-family CRAs for MFMp and NPMp most often regarded lack of informed consent (50% and 57%, respectively), lack of full disclosure (41% and 29%, respectively) and lack of anticipatory guidance (36% and 21%, respectively).
This study of a major legal database identifies CRAs as significant causes of legal action against MFMp and NPMp involved in the care of high-risk women and infants delivered preterm. Physicians should be especially vigilant with obtaining genuine informed consent and maintaining open communication with families.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 27 July 2017; doi:10.1038/jp.2017.113.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,909,758
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Perinatology
#2,177
of 2,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,834
of 317,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Perinatology
#28
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
