CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Medical Malpractice and Liability IssuesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Paid Malpractice Claims for Adverse Events in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings

Bishop, Tara F.·2011·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2011.813
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context An analysis of paid malpractice claims may provide insight into the prevalence and seriousness of adverse medical events in the outpatient setting. Objective To report and compare the number, magnitude, and type of paid malpractice claims for events in inpatient and outpatient settings. Design and setting Retrospective analysis of malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians in outpatient and inpatient settings using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank from 2005 through 2009. We evaluated trends in claims paid by setting, characteristics of paid claims, and factors associated with payment amount. Main outcome measures Number of paid claims, mean and median payment amounts, types of errors, and outcomes of errors. Results In 2009, there were 10,739 malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians. Of these paid claims, 4910 (47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.6%-48.5%) were for events in the inpatient setting, 4448 (43.1%; 95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) were for events in the outpatient setting, and 966 (9.4%; 95% CI, 8.8%-9.9%) involved events in both settings. The proportion of payments for events in the outpatient setting increased by a small but statistically significant amount, from 41.7% (95% CI, 40.9%-42.6%) in 2005 to 43.1% (95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) in 2009 (P Conclusion In 2009, the number of paid malpractice claims reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank for events in the outpatient setting was similar to the number in the inpatient setting.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2011.813

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bishop, T. F.
Affiliations
Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Bishop, Tara F.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2011-06-15
Volume
305
Issue
23
Pages
2427
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2011.813
OpenAlex
W2041073890
Cited by
147
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 11
FWCI
35.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K01 HS018546-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
malpractice claims, adverse events, outpatient care, inpatient care, diagnostic errors, surgical errors, National Practitioner Data Bank, physician liability, patient safety, patient harm
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Ambulatory Care, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Infant, Inpatients, Insurance Claim Review, Male, Malpractice, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Physicians, Retrospective Studies, Surgical Procedures, Operative, United States, Liability, Legal, National Practitioner Data Bank, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Medical Errors, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures

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