CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Medical Malpractice and Liability IssuesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Regulation

Medical malpractice in Norway: frequency and distribution of disciplinary actions for medical doctors 2011–2018

Open access
Harbitz, Martin B., Stensland, Per Steinar, Abelsen, Birgit·2021·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/s12913-021-06334-2PMC PMC8034155
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Physicians who perform unsafe practices and harm patients may be disciplined. In Norway, there are five types of disciplinary action, ranging from a warning for the least serious examples of malpractice to loss of licence for the most serious ones. Disciplinary actions always involve medical malpractice. The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency and distribution of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision for doctors in Norway and to uncover nation-wide patient safety issues. Methods: We retrospectively investigated all 953 disciplinary actions for doctors given by the Board between 2011 and 2018. We categorized these according to type of action, recipient’s profession, organizational factors and geographical location of the recipient. Frequencies, cross tables, rates and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. Results: Rural general practitioners received the most disciplinary actions of all doctors and had their licence revoked or restricted 2.1 times more frequently than urban general practitioners. General practitioners and private specialists received respectively 98.7 and 91.0 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Senior consultants and junior doctors working in hospitals received respectively 17.0 and 6.4 disciplinary actions per 1000 doctors. Eight times more actions were received by primary care doctors than secondary care doctors. Doctors working in primary care were given a warning 10.6 times more often and had their licence revoked or restricted 4.6 times more often than those in secondary care. Conclusion: The distribution and frequency of disciplinary actions by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision clearly varied according to type of health care facility. Private specialists and general practitioners, especially those working in rural clinics, received the most disciplinary actions. These results deserve attention from health policy-makers and warrant further studies to determine the factors that influence medical malpractice. Moreover, the supervisory authorities should assess whether their procedures for reacting to malpractice are efficient and adequate for all types of physicians working in Norway.

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 · 10.1186/s12913-021-06334-2

Cites

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?

  • Common consequences for diagnostic errors are error and warning records in the clinicians' personnel files, revocation or restriction of license, probation, and suspension.

    “Common consequences for diagnostic errors are error and warning records in the clinicians’ personnel files [141], revocation or restriction of license [259], probation, and suspension [260].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [259]

    Table 2 in Results lists 258 instances of a doctor's licence being revoked or restricted as disciplinary actions in Norway. This supports the consequence attached to citation [259], but the study reports disciplinary actions for medical malpractice generally, not specifically for diagnostic errors. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 8

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [1]Jha AK Larizgoitia I Audera-Lopez C Prasopa-Plaizier N Waters H Bates DW The global burden of unsafe medical care: analytic modelling of observational studies BMJ Qual Saf 2013 22 10 809 815 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001748 24048616 · DOI
  2. [2]Daker-White G, Hays R, McSharry J, Giles S, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Rhodes P, et al. Blame the patient, blame the doctor or blame the system? A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies of patient safety in primary care. PLoS One. 2015;10(8). 10.1371/journal.pone.0128329. PMC4526558 26244494 · DOI
  3. [3]Panagioti M Khan K Keers RN Abuzour A Phipps D Kontopantelis E Bower P Campbell S Haneef R Avery AJ Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2019 366 l4185 10.1136/bmj.l4185 31315828 PMC6939648 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]Panesar SS deSilva D Carson-Stevens A Cresswell KM Salvilla SA Slight SP Javad S Netuveli G Larizgoitia I Donaldson LJ How safe is primary care? A systematic review BMJ Qual Saf 2016 25 7 544 553 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004178 26715764 · DOI
  5. [5]Singh H Meyer AN Thomas EJ The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations BMJ Qual Saf 2014 23 9 727 731 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627 24742777 PMC4145460 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Kohn LT Corrigan JM Donaldson CJ To err is human: building a safer health system 1999 Washington, DC National Academy Press 25077248
  7. [7]Schwendimann R Blatter C Dhaini S Simon M Ausserhofer D The occurrence, types, consequences and preventability of in-hospital adverse events - a scoping review BMC Health Serv Res 2018 18 1 521 10.1186/s12913-018-3335-z 29973258 PMC6032777 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9]Gaal S Hartman C Giesen P van Weel C Verstappen W Wensing M Complaints against family physicians submitted to disciplinary tribunals in the Netherlands: lessons for patient safety Ann Fam Med 2011 9 6 522 527 10.1370/afm.1308 22084263 PMC3252193 · DOI
  9. [10]Wang Z Li N Jiang M Dear K Hsieh CR Records of medical malpractice litigation: a potential indicator of health-care quality in China Bull World Health Organ 2017 95 6 430 436 10.2471/BLT.16.179143 28603309 PMC5463812 · DOI
  10. [11]Mello MM Studdert DM Kachalia A The medical liability climate and prospects for reform JAMA 2014 312 20 2146 2155 10.1001/jama.2014.10705 25358122 · DOI
  11. [13]Alam A Klemensberg J Griesman J Bell CM The characteristics of physicians disciplined by professional colleges in Canada Open Med 2011 5 4 e166 e172 22567070 PMC3345379
  12. [14]Millbank J Serious misconduct of health professionals in disciplinary tribunals under the National Law 2010-17 Aust Health Rev 2020 44 2 190 199 10.1071/AH18239 31671287 · DOI
  13. [15]Reason J Human error: models and management BMJ 2000 320 7237 768 770 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768 10720363 PMC1117770 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [16]Donabedian A The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988 260 12 1743 1748 10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033 3045356 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [17]Runciman W Hibbert P Thomson R Van Der Schaaf T Sherman H Lewalle P Towards an international classification for patient safety: key concepts and terms Int J Qual Health Care 2009 21 1 18 26 10.1093/intqhc/mzn057 19147597 PMC2638755 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [18]O'Dowd E Lydon S Madden C O'Connor P A systematic review of patient complaints about general practice Fam Pract 2020 37 3 297 305 10.1093/fampra/cmz082 31742596 · DOI
  17. [19]Birkeland S Bogh SB General practice location and malpractice litigation Rural Remote Health 2019 19 1 4663 10.22605/RRH4663 30797227 · DOI
  18. [20]Spittal MJ Bismark MM Studdert DM Identification of practitioners at high risk of complaints to health profession regulators BMC Health Serv Res 2019 19 1 380 10.1186/s12913-019-4214-y 31196074 PMC6567559 · DOI
  19. [26]Raknes G Morken T Hunskar S Travel time and distances to Norwegian out-of-hours casualty clinics Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2014 134 22 2145 2150 10.4045/tidsskr.14.0437 25423979 · DOI
  20. [29]Bratland SZ Hunskar S Medico-legal assessments of complaints against general practitioners Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2006 126 2 166 169 16415939
  21. [30]Taylor MJ McNicholas C Nicolay C Darzi A Bell D Reed JE Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare BMJ Qual Saf 2014 23 4 290 298 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862 24025320 PMC3963536 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [31]Best M Neuhauser D W Edwards Deming: father of quality management, patient and composer Qual Saf Health Care 2005 14 4 310 312 10.1136/qshc.2005.015289 16076798 PMC1744063 · DOI
  23. [32]Institute of Medicine Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century 2001 Washington, DC National Academy Press 25057539
  24. [34]Kulig JC Williams AM Health in rural Canada 2011 Vancouver UBC Press
  25. [35]Murphy P Burge F Wong ST Measurement and rural primary health care: a scoping review Rural Remote Health 2019 19 3 4911 10.22605/RRH4911 31365828 · DOI
  26. [36]Harbitz MB Brandstorp H Gaski M Rural general practice patients’ coping with hazards and harm: an interview study BMJ Open 2019 9 10 e031343 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031343 31630108 PMC6803137 · DOI
  27. [38]Zielinski A Borgquist L Halling A Distance to hospital and socioeconomic status influence secondary health care use Scand J Prim Health Care 2013 31 2 83 88 10.3109/02813432.2012.759712 23301541 PMC3656400 · DOI
  28. [39]Croskerry P Singhal G Mamede S Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing BMJ Qual Saf 2013 22 Suppl 2 ii58 ii64 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712 PMC3786658 23882089 · DOI
  29. [40]Molven O Reporting of patient injuries--the supervisory authority’s use of sanctions Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2010 130 3 266 269 10.4045/tidsskr.09.0694 20160769 · DOI

Authors
Harbitz, M. B., Stensland, P. S., & Abelsen, B.
Affiliations
  • UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Harbitz, Martin B.
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-04-09
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
324-324
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12913-021-06334-2
PMC
PMC8034155
OpenAlex
W3151669955
Cited by
8
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Universitetet i Tromsø
  • Fonden for Almen Praksis
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 › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
Keywords
medical malpractice, medical licensing, patient safety, general practitioners, rural general practice, consultants, license revocation, health supervision
MeSH terms
Humans, Malpractice, Norway, Physicians, Retrospective Studies, Specialization

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