Cited by 233Medical Malpractice and Liability IssuesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Learning from malpractice claims about negligent, adverse events in primary care in the United States

Open access
Phillips, R L·2004·Quality and Safety in Health Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology, risks, and outcomes of errors in primary care are poorly understood. Malpractice claims brought for negligent adverse events offer a useful insight into errors in primary care. METHODS: Physician Insurers Association of America malpractice claims data (1985-2000) were analyzed for proportions of negligent claims by primary care specialty, setting, severity, health condition, and attributed cause. We also calculated risks of a claim for condition-specific negligent events relative to the prevalence of those conditions in primary care. RESULTS: Of 49345 primary care claims, 26126 (53%) were peer reviewed and 5921 (23%) were assessed as negligent; 68% of claims were for negligent events in outpatient settings. No single condition accounted for more than 5% of all negligent claims, but the underlying causes were more clustered with "diagnosis error" making up one third of claims. The ratios of condition-specific negligent event claims relative to the frequency of those conditions in primary care revealed a significantly disproportionate risk for a number of conditions (for example, appendicitis was 25 times more likely to generate a claim for negligence than breast cancer). CONCLUSIONS: Claims data identify conditions and processes where primary health care in the United States is prone to go awry. The burden of severe outcomes and death from malpractice claims made against primary care physicians was greater in primary care outpatient settings than in hospitals. Although these data enhance information about error related negligent events in primary care, particularly when combined with other primary care data, there are many operating limitations.

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 · 10.1136/qshc.2003.008029

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rubin G. Medical errors. Terminology of "error" is important. BMJ. 2001 Jun 9;322(7299):1422–1422. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, R. L.
Corresponding author
Phillips, R L
Venue
Quality and Safety in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-04-01
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
121-126
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2167775373
Cited by
233
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 12
FWCI
36.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
malpractice claims, primary care, diagnostic errors, medical negligence, adverse events, outpatient care, physician liability, quality of care
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, Insurance Claim Review, Malpractice, Primary Health Care, Quality of Health Care, United States, Peer Review, Health Care, 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