Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,119

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physician-Patient Communication<subtitle>The Relationship With Malpractice Claims Among Primary Care Physicians and Surgeons</subtitle>

Levinson, Wendy·1997·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

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 (≥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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03540310051034

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,119

Metadata

Authors
Levinson, W.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1997-02-19
Volume
277
Issue
7
Pages
553
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4245899339
Cited by
1,119
References
2
FWCI
43.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physician-Patient Communication<subtitle>The Relationship With Malpractice Claims Among Primary Care Physicians and Surgeons</subtitle>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1997.03540310051034
The paper
Levinson, W. (1997). Physician-Patient Communication<subtitle>The Relationship With Malpractice Claims Among Primary Care Physicians and Surgeons</subtitle>. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540310051034

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.