World J Mens Health.  2016 Apr;34(1):56-63. 10.5534/wjmh.2016.34.1.56.

Controlling Legal Risk for Effective Hospital Management

• Park HJ
• Cho DY
• Park YS
• Kim SW
• Park JH
• Park NC

• KMID: 2162604
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.2016.34.1.56

Abstract

PURPOSE
To analyze the types of medical malpractice, medical errors, and medical disputes in a university hospital for the proposal of countermeasures that maximize the efficiency of hospital management, medical departments, and healthcare providers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study retrospectively reviewed and analyzed 55 closed civil lawsuits among 64 medical lawsuit cases carried out in Pusan National University Hospital from January 2000 to April 2013 using medical records, petitions, briefs, and data from the Medical Dispute Mediation Committee.
RESULTS
Of 55 civil lawsuits, men were the main plaintiffs in 31 cases (56.4%). The average period from medical malpractice to malpractice proceeding was 16.5 months (range, 1 month to 6.4 years), and the average period from malpractice proceeding to the disposition of a lawsuit was 21.7 months (range, 1 month to 4 years and 11 months).
CONCLUSIONS
Hospitals can effectively manage their legal risks by implementing a systematic medical system, eliminating risk factors in administrative service, educating all hospital employees on preventative strategies, and improving customer service. Furthermore, efforts should be made to establish standard coping strategies to manage medical disputes and malpractice lawsuits, operate alternative dispute resolution methods including the Medical Dispute Mediation Committee, create a compliance support center, deploy a specialized workforce including improved legal services for employees, and specialize the management-level tasks of the hospital.

Keyword

Financial management, hospital; Lawsuits; Legal cases; Malpractice

MeSH Terms

Busan
Compliance
Dissent and Disputes
Financial Management, Hospital
Health Personnel
Humans
Male
Malpractice
Medical Errors
Medical Records
Negotiating
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Chronological prevalence of medical litigation in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.

Reference

1. Korean Ministry of Justice. Medical malpractice & dispute care act (Korean edition). 2012. Gwacheon: Korea Ministry;2012.

2. Korean Supreme Court. Judicial year book (Korean edition). 1992-2012. Seoul: Korea Supreme Court;2012.

3. Johnston JC, Sartwelle TP. The expert witness in medical malpractice litigation: through the looking glass. J Child Neurol. 2013; 28:484–501.

4. Bal BS. An introduction to medical malpractice in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467:339–347.

5. Japan Supreme Court. Termination cases and ratio of medical litigation [Internet]. Tokyo: Japan Supreme Court;cited 2014 Feb 7. Available from: http://www.courts.go.jp/saikosai/.

6. Wu CY, Weng HC, Chen RC. Time trends of assessments for medical dispute cases in Taiwan: a 20-year nationwide study. Intern Med J. 2013; 43:1023–1030.

7. Saran K. Disclosure system reduce medical litigation [Internet]. Seoul: Korea Healthlog;cited 2014 Feb 11. Available from: http://www.koreahealthlog.com/news/newsview.php?newscd=2011111100034.

8. Special Litigation Review Committee of Osaka Local Court. 5-year report of medical litigation intensive court. Judicial Precedent Times No. 1218. Osaka: Special Litigation Review Committee of Osaka Local Court;2009.

9. Lee YC, Park HN, Lim JD. Medical dispute mediation. Seoul: Bomungak;2007. p. 31–39.

10. Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365:629–636.

11. Zenilman JC, Haskel MA, McCabe J, Zenilman ME. Closed claim review from a single carrier in New York: the real costs of malpractice in surgery and factors that determine outcomes. Am J Surg. 2012; 203:733–740.