Academic and trainee empirical review of cases by state of Texas physicians

Timothy Craig Allen, Mehary Stafford, Bryan A. Liang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study examines whether the assumptions that pathologists understand the medical malpractice negligence rule and have a clear single standard of care are reasonable. Methods: Two hundred eighty-one Texas academic pathologists and trainees were presented 10 actual pathology malpractice cases from publicly available sources, representing the tort system's signal. Results: Of the respondents, 55.52% were trainees, and 44.48% were pathology faculty. Only in two cases did more than 50% of respondents correctly identify the behavior of pathologists as defined by legal outcomes. In only half of the cases did more than 50% of pathologists concur with the jury verdict. Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that physicians do not understand the legal rule of negligence. Pathologists have a poor understanding of negligence and cannot accurately predict a jury verdict. There is significant divergence from the single standard of care assumption. Alternative methods to provide appropriate compensation and to establish physician accountability should be explored. Additional education about medical negligence is needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)501-509
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology
Volume141
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Malpractice
Physicians
Standard of Care
Pathology
Legal Liability
Social Responsibility
Medical Education
Compensation and Redress
Pathologists

Keywords

  • AP general
  • Economic evaluation
  • Management/administration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Academic and trainee empirical review of cases by state of Texas physicians. / Allen, Timothy Craig; Stafford, Mehary; Liang, Bryan A.

In: American Journal of Clinical Pathology, Vol. 141, No. 4, 2014, p. 501-509.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Allen, Timothy Craig ; Stafford, Mehary ; Liang, Bryan A. / Academic and trainee empirical review of cases by state of Texas physicians. In: American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2014 ; Vol. 141, No. 4. pp. 501-509.
@article{37839050b99749538e25dab19d07e18a,
title = "Academic and trainee empirical review of cases by state of Texas physicians",
abstract = "Objectives: This study examines whether the assumptions that pathologists understand the medical malpractice negligence rule and have a clear single standard of care are reasonable. Methods: Two hundred eighty-one Texas academic pathologists and trainees were presented 10 actual pathology malpractice cases from publicly available sources, representing the tort system's signal. Results: Of the respondents, 55.52{\%} were trainees, and 44.48{\%} were pathology faculty. Only in two cases did more than 50{\%} of respondents correctly identify the behavior of pathologists as defined by legal outcomes. In only half of the cases did more than 50{\%} of pathologists concur with the jury verdict. Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that physicians do not understand the legal rule of negligence. Pathologists have a poor understanding of negligence and cannot accurately predict a jury verdict. There is significant divergence from the single standard of care assumption. Alternative methods to provide appropriate compensation and to establish physician accountability should be explored. Additional education about medical negligence is needed.",
keywords = "AP general, Economic evaluation, Management/administration",
author = "Allen, {Timothy Craig} and Mehary Stafford and Liang, {Bryan A.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1309/AJCPQLK63BQFDODF",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "141",
pages = "501--509",
journal = "American Journal of Clinical Pathology",
issn = "0002-9173",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Pathologists",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Academic and trainee empirical review of cases by state of Texas physicians

AU - Allen, Timothy Craig

AU - Stafford, Mehary

AU - Liang, Bryan A.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Objectives: This study examines whether the assumptions that pathologists understand the medical malpractice negligence rule and have a clear single standard of care are reasonable. Methods: Two hundred eighty-one Texas academic pathologists and trainees were presented 10 actual pathology malpractice cases from publicly available sources, representing the tort system's signal. Results: Of the respondents, 55.52% were trainees, and 44.48% were pathology faculty. Only in two cases did more than 50% of respondents correctly identify the behavior of pathologists as defined by legal outcomes. In only half of the cases did more than 50% of pathologists concur with the jury verdict. Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that physicians do not understand the legal rule of negligence. Pathologists have a poor understanding of negligence and cannot accurately predict a jury verdict. There is significant divergence from the single standard of care assumption. Alternative methods to provide appropriate compensation and to establish physician accountability should be explored. Additional education about medical negligence is needed.

AB - Objectives: This study examines whether the assumptions that pathologists understand the medical malpractice negligence rule and have a clear single standard of care are reasonable. Methods: Two hundred eighty-one Texas academic pathologists and trainees were presented 10 actual pathology malpractice cases from publicly available sources, representing the tort system's signal. Results: Of the respondents, 55.52% were trainees, and 44.48% were pathology faculty. Only in two cases did more than 50% of respondents correctly identify the behavior of pathologists as defined by legal outcomes. In only half of the cases did more than 50% of pathologists concur with the jury verdict. Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that physicians do not understand the legal rule of negligence. Pathologists have a poor understanding of negligence and cannot accurately predict a jury verdict. There is significant divergence from the single standard of care assumption. Alternative methods to provide appropriate compensation and to establish physician accountability should be explored. Additional education about medical negligence is needed.

KW - AP general

KW - Economic evaluation

KW - Management/administration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899481627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899481627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1309/AJCPQLK63BQFDODF

DO - 10.1309/AJCPQLK63BQFDODF

M3 - Article

C2 - 24619750

AN - SCOPUS:84899481627

VL - 141

SP - 501

EP - 509

JO - American Journal of Clinical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Clinical Pathology

SN - 0002-9173

IS - 4

ER -