Cited by 407Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Medical Errors Involving Trainees: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims From 5 Insurers

Singh, Hardeep, Thomas, Eric J., Petersen, Laura A., Studdert, David M.·2007·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite wide recognition that the delivery of medical care by trainees involves special risks, information about the types and causes of medical errors involving trainees is limited. To describe the characteristics of and factors contributing to trainee errors, we analyzed malpractice claims in which trainees were judged to have played an important role in harmful errors. METHODS: The claims were closed between 1984 and 2004, and the errors occurred between 1979 and 2001. Specialist physicians reviewed random samples of closed malpractice claim files at 5 liability insurers from 2002 to 2004 and determined whether injuries had occurred, and if so, whether they were due to error. We described the clinical circumstances and contributing factors associated with harmful errors involving trainees ("cases"). We also compared the characteristics of cases with their nontrainee counterparts and probed trainee errors attributed to teamwork problems and lack of technical competence or knowledge. RESULTS: Among 240 cases, errors in judgment (173 of 240 [72%]), teamwork breakdowns (167 of 240 [70%]), and lack of technical competence (139 of 240 [58%]) were the most prevalent contributing factors. Lack of supervision and handoff problems were most prevalent types of teamwork problems, and both were disproportionately more common among errors that involved trainees than those that did not (respectively, 54% vs 7% [P < .001] and 20% vs 12% [P = .009]). The most common task during which failures of technical competence occurred were diagnostic decision making and monitoring of the patient or situation. Trainee errors appeared more complex than nontrainee errors (mean of 3.8 contributing factors vs 2.5 [P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to problems with handoffs, house staff are particularly vulnerable to medical errors owing to teamwork failures, especially lack of supervision. Graduate medical education reform should focus on strengthening these aspects of training.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.167.19.2030

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Petersen, L. A., & Studdert, D. M.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2007-10-22
Volume
167
Issue
19
Pages
2030
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027105085
Cited by
407
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 34
FWCI
45.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1P01 HS 11544-01, HS011886-03, KO2HS11285)
  • National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
medical errors, trainees, malpractice claims, lack of supervision, handoff errors, technical skills, diagnostic decision-making, graduate medical education reform, patient safety
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Female, Humans, Insurance Claim Review, Insurance, Liability, Internship and Residency, Male, Malpractice, United States, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review