Cited by 197Medical Malpractice and Liability IssuesHealthcare cost, quality, practicesHealthcare Policy and Management

Malpractice Liability and Defensive Medicine: A National Survey of Neurosurgeons

Open access
Nahed, Brian V., Babu, Maya A., Smith, Timothy R., Heary, Robert F.·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concern over rising healthcare expenditures has led to increased scrutiny of medical practices. As medical liability and malpractice risk rise to crisis levels, the medical-legal environment has contributed to the practice of defensive medicine as practitioners attempt to mitigate liability risk. High-risk specialties, such as neurosurgery, are particularly affected and neurosurgeons have altered their practices to lessen medical-legal risk. We present the first national survey of American neurosurgeons' perceptions of malpractice liability and defensive medicine practices. METHODS: A validated, 51-question online-survey was sent to 3344 practicing U.S. neurosurgeon members of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, which represents 76% of neurosurgeons in academic and private practices. RESULTS: A total of 1028 surveys were completed (31% response rate) by neurosurgeons representing diverse sub-specialty practices. Respondents engaged in defensive medicine practices by ordering additional imaging studies (72%), laboratory tests (67%), referring patients to consultants (66%), or prescribing medications (40%). Malpractice premiums were considered a "major or extreme" burden by 64% of respondents which resulted in 45% of respondents eliminating high-risk procedures from their practice due to liability concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns and perceptions about medical liability lead practitioners to practice defensive medicine. As a result, diagnostic testing, consultations and imaging studies are ordered to satisfy a perceived legal risk, resulting in higher healthcare expenditures. To minimize malpractice risk, some neurosurgeons have eliminated high-risk procedures. Left unchecked, concerns over medical liability will further defensive medicine practices, limit patient access to care, and increase the cost of healthcare delivery in the United States.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0039237

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Clinicians' decision making can be greatly impacted by the potential medical liability risk, which often leads to selecting defensive practices, such as ordering unnecessary tests and referrals, that are perceived as mitigating malpractice claim risk instead of clinically necessary actions to avoid legal issues.

    “Clinicians’ decision making can be greatly impacted by the potential medical liability risk, which often leads to selecting defensive practices, such as ordering unnecessary tests and referrals, that are perceived as mitigating malpractice claim risk instead of clinically necessary actions to avoid legal issues [262,263,264].”

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: 2

  1. [6]Mohr JC 1992 The origins of medical malpractice in the United States. Trans Stud Coll Physicians Phila 14 1 21 1604464
  2. [16]Krist AH Woolf SH Johnson RE 2007 How physicians approach prostate cancer screening before and after losing a lawsuit. Ann Fam Med 5 120 5 17389535 PMC1838685

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nahed, B. V., Babu, M. A., Smith, T. R., & Heary, R. F.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
  • Nahed, Brian V.
  • Babu, Maya A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-06-22
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e39237
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965052854
Cited by
197
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
32.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
defensive medicine, medical malpractice liability, neurosurgeons, malpractice premiums, diagnostic testing, image studies, high-risk procedures, health care costs, medical-legal risk, patient access to care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Defensive Medicine, Female, Humans, Insurance, Liability, Male, Malpractice, Neurosurgery, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Health Care Surveys

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