Skip to main content
Log in

Physician surveys to assess customary care in medical malpractice cases

  • Innovations In Education And Clinical Practice
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Physician experts hired and prepared by the litigants provide most information on standard of care for medical malpractice cases. Since this information may not be objective or accurate, we examined the feasibility and potential value of surveying community physicians to assess standard of care.

DESIGN: Seven physician surveys of mutually exclusive groups of randomly selected physicians.

SETTING: Iowa.

PARTICIPANTS: Community and academic primary care physicians and relevant specialists.

INTERVENTIONS: Included in each survey was a case vignette of a primary care malpractice case and key quotes from medical experts on each side of the case. Surveyed physicians were asked whether the patient should have been referred to a specialist for additional evaluation. The 7 case vignettes included 3 closed medical malpractice cases, 3 modifications of these cases, and 1 active case.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of 350 community primary care physicians and 51% of 216 community specialists completed the questionnaire. For 3 closed cases, 47%, 78%, and 88% of primary care physician respondents reported that they would have made a different referral decision than the defendant. Referral percentages were minimally affected by modifying patient outcome but substantially changed by modifying patient presentation. Most physicians, even those whose referral decisions were unusual, assumed that other physicians would make similar referral decisions. For each case, at least 65% of the primary care physicians disagreed with the testimony of one of the expert witnesses. In the active case, the response rate was high (71%), and the respondents did not withhold criticism of the defendant doctor.

CONCLUSIONS: Randomly selected peer physicians are willing to participate in surveys of medical malpractice cases. The surveys can be used to construct the distribution of physician self-reported practice relevant to a particular malpractice case. This distribution may provide more information about customary practice or standard of care than the opinion of a single physician expert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drechsler CT. Duty of care: liability for malpractice. In: American Jurisprudence: Physicians, Surgeons and Other Healers, Vol 61, section 206, 2nd Ed. St Paul, Minn: West Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Danzon P. Medical Malpractice: Theory, Evidence, and Public Policy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1985:140.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Danzon P. Medical Malpractice: Theory, Evidence, and Public Policy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1985:149.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Meltzer N. Helling v. Carey: a landmark or exception in medical malpractice? New Eng L Rev. 1975;11:301–12.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Danzon P. Medical Malpractice: Theory, Evidence, and Public Policy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1985:144.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hall MA. The defensive effect of medical practice policies in malpractice litigation. Law Contemp Probs. 1991;54:119–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones v. Chidester. Atlantic Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol 610. St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing, Inc.; 1992;964–70.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gross SR. Expert evidence. Wis L Rev. 1991;1991:1113–232.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boyarsky S. Practical Measures to Reduce Medical Expert Witness Bias. J Forensic Sci. 1989;34:1259–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher CW, Dombrowski MP, Jaszczak SE, Cook CD, Sokol RJ. The expert witness: real issues and suggestions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1792–800.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. American Medical Association. Proceedings of the House of Delegates, 52nd Interim Meeting, December 1998. Chicago, Ill: AMA; 1998:104–10.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Angell M. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. London, New York: W.W. Norton and Company; 1997:205.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cecil JS, Willging TE. Court-Appointed Experts: Defining the Role of Experts Appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rasor DJ. Mandatory medical malpractice screening panels: a need to re-evaluate. Ohio St J Disp Resol. 1993;9:115–38.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Meadow W, Sunstein CS. Statistics, Not Experts. Chicago, Ill: John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No. 109, (2D Series); 2000.

  16. The Official ABMS Directory of Board-Certified Medical Specialists 2000, 32nd Ed. New Providence, NJ: Reed Elsevier, Inc.; 1999.

  17. American Medical Association (AMA) (1995–2000) AMA Physician Select. URL http://www.americanmedicalassociation.org (1999). Accessed May 20, 1999.

  18. United States Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing Table: States and Counties by Urban/Rural Population, 1990, Summary Tape File 3B CD-Rom. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Peters PG. The quiet demise of deference to custom: malpractice law at the millennium. Wash Lee L Rev. 2000;57:163–205.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Cheney FW. Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care. JAMA. 1991;265:1957–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Harvard Medical Practice Study Group. Patients, Doctors, and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1990:52.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Colliver JA, Swartz MH. Assessing clinical performance with standardized patients. JAMA. 1997;278:790–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:1715–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Physicians and Surgeons Update: The St. Paul’s Annual Report to Policyholders. St. Paul, Minn: St. Paul Medical Services; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Danzon P. Medical Malpractice: Theory, Evidence, and Public Policy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1985:31.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 703.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur Hartz MD, PhD.

Additional information

The work of Dr. Hartz was supported in part by a grant from the Health Services and Resources Administration (5D32PE10195-02). The work of Mr. Lucas was supported by grants from the Health Services and Resources Administration (PD15 PE87007 and 5D32PE10195-02) and from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2T35HL07485-21).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartz, A., Lucas, J., Cramm, T. et al. Physician surveys to assess customary care in medical malpractice cases. J GEN INTERN MED 17, 546–555 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10740.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10740.x

Key words

Navigation