.: ORİJİNAL ARAŞTIRMA
Defensive Medicine Practices Among Ophthalmologists in Turkey
Türkiye'deki Oftalmologlar Arasında Defansif Tıp Uygulamaları
Turkiye Klinikleri J Ophthalmol. 2021;30(1):30-5
doi: 10.5336/ophthal.2020-76552
Makale Dili: EN
Tam Metin
ABSTRACT
Objective: To investigate the prevalence of defensive medicine among ophthalmologists in Turkey and how malpractice cases affect ophthalmologists. Material and Methods: Surveys about defensive medicine were sent to the e-mail addresses of 247 ophthalmologists registered with the Turkish Ophthalmological Association between July 2019 and November 2019. In addition, direct interviews were conducted with the doctors between the same dates. Results: A total of 194 (78.5%) out of 247 ophthalmologists completed the survey. The survey results showed that, while most of the doctors had previously heard of defensive medicine, they did not have detailed knowledge about this concept and 66.5% of the ophthalmologists who responded want additional consultation for defensive purposes and 57.7% would like additional laboratory tests. In addition, 67.5% stated that they avoided cases that were difficult to diagnose and treat, while 68.6% stated that they avoided high-risk surgeries. Although only 6.2% of respondents had faced malpractice lawsuits, 78.7% of ophthalmologists stated that these cases affected their clinical practice. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating defensive medicine among ophthalmologists. Our results showed that defensive medicine is common in ophthalmology. In addition, malpractice cases increase defensive medicine among ophthalmologists and negatively affect their professional lives.
Keywords: Defensive medicine; malpractice; insurance, liability
Objective: To investigate the prevalence of defensive medicine among ophthalmologists in Turkey and how malpractice cases affect ophthalmologists. Material and Methods: Surveys about defensive medicine were sent to the e-mail addresses of 247 ophthalmologists registered with the Turkish Ophthalmological Association between July 2019 and November 2019. In addition, direct interviews were conducted with the doctors between the same dates. Results: A total of 194 (78.5%) out of 247 ophthalmologists completed the survey. The survey results showed that, while most of the doctors had previously heard of defensive medicine, they did not have detailed knowledge about this concept and 66.5% of the ophthalmologists who responded want additional consultation for defensive purposes and 57.7% would like additional laboratory tests. In addition, 67.5% stated that they avoided cases that were difficult to diagnose and treat, while 68.6% stated that they avoided high-risk surgeries. Although only 6.2% of respondents had faced malpractice lawsuits, 78.7% of ophthalmologists stated that these cases affected their clinical practice. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating defensive medicine among ophthalmologists. Our results showed that defensive medicine is common in ophthalmology. In addition, malpractice cases increase defensive medicine among ophthalmologists and negatively affect their professional lives.
Keywords: Defensive medicine; malpractice; insurance, liability
ÖZET
Amaç: Türkiye'deki oftalmologlar arasında defansif tıp uygulamalarının yaygınlığını ve malpraktis davalarının, oftalmologları nasıl etkilediğinin araştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Temmuz 2019 ve Kasım 2019 tarihleri arasında defansif tıp uygulamaları ile ilgili hazırlanmış anketler, 247 oftalmoloğun Türk Oftalmoloji Derneğine bildirdikleri elektronik posta adreslerine gönderildi. Ayrıca aynı tarihler arasında doktorlarla doğrudan görüşmeler yapılarak, anketlerin cevaplanması istendi. Bulgular: Anketin ulaştırıldığı 247 oftalmologdan 194 (%78,5)'ü anketi tamamladı. Anket sonuçları doktorların büyük bir kısmının defansif tıp kavramını daha önce duyduğunu fakat bu kavram hakkında detaylı bilgi sahibi olmadıklarını gösterdi. Anketi cevaplayan oftalmologların %66,5'i defansif amaçlarla ek konsültasyon istediklerini, %57,7'si ise ek laboratuar tetkikleri istediklerini belirtti. Ayrıca %67,5'i tanı ve tedavisi güç vakalardan, %68,6'sı ise yüksek riskli cerrahilerden kaçındıklarını belirtti. Anketi cevaplayanların yalnızca %6,2'si malpraktis nedeniyle dava edilmiş olmasına karşın oftalmologların %78,7'si, bu davaların klinik pratiklerini etkilediğini belirtti. Sonuç: Bildiğimiz kadarı ile bu çalışma, oftalmologlar arasında defansif tıbbın araştırıldığı literatürdeki ilk çalışmadır. Sonuçlarımız, oftalmoloji alanında da defansif tıbbın yaygın olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca malpraktis davaları, oftalmologlar arasında defansif tıbbı yaygınlaştırmakta ve meslek hayatlarını olumsuz etkilemektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Defansif tıp; malpraktis; sigorta, yükümlülük
Amaç: Türkiye'deki oftalmologlar arasında defansif tıp uygulamalarının yaygınlığını ve malpraktis davalarının, oftalmologları nasıl etkilediğinin araştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Temmuz 2019 ve Kasım 2019 tarihleri arasında defansif tıp uygulamaları ile ilgili hazırlanmış anketler, 247 oftalmoloğun Türk Oftalmoloji Derneğine bildirdikleri elektronik posta adreslerine gönderildi. Ayrıca aynı tarihler arasında doktorlarla doğrudan görüşmeler yapılarak, anketlerin cevaplanması istendi. Bulgular: Anketin ulaştırıldığı 247 oftalmologdan 194 (%78,5)'ü anketi tamamladı. Anket sonuçları doktorların büyük bir kısmının defansif tıp kavramını daha önce duyduğunu fakat bu kavram hakkında detaylı bilgi sahibi olmadıklarını gösterdi. Anketi cevaplayan oftalmologların %66,5'i defansif amaçlarla ek konsültasyon istediklerini, %57,7'si ise ek laboratuar tetkikleri istediklerini belirtti. Ayrıca %67,5'i tanı ve tedavisi güç vakalardan, %68,6'sı ise yüksek riskli cerrahilerden kaçındıklarını belirtti. Anketi cevaplayanların yalnızca %6,2'si malpraktis nedeniyle dava edilmiş olmasına karşın oftalmologların %78,7'si, bu davaların klinik pratiklerini etkilediğini belirtti. Sonuç: Bildiğimiz kadarı ile bu çalışma, oftalmologlar arasında defansif tıbbın araştırıldığı literatürdeki ilk çalışmadır. Sonuçlarımız, oftalmoloji alanında da defansif tıbbın yaygın olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca malpraktis davaları, oftalmologlar arasında defansif tıbbı yaygınlaştırmakta ve meslek hayatlarını olumsuz etkilemektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Defansif tıp; malpraktis; sigorta, yükümlülük
REFERANSLAR:
- Thorpe KE. The medical malpractice 'crisis': recent trends and the impact of state tort reforms. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-20-30.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Nguyen Thi PL, Briançon S, Empereur F, Guillemin F. Factors determining inpatient satisfaction with care. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(4):493-504.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice. OTA-H--6O2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1994.[Link]
- Tancredi LR, Barondess JA. The problem of defensive medicine. Science. 1978;200(4344):879-82.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Tuers DM. Defensive medicine in the emergency department: increasing health care costs without increasing quality? Nurs Adm Q. 2013;37(2):160-4.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bishop TF, Federman AD, Keyhani S. Physicians' views on defensive medicine: a national survey. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1081-3.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, Studdert DM. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1569-77.[Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Ridic G, Howard T, Ridic O. Medical malpractice in connecticut: defensive medicine, real problem or a red herring - example of assessment of quality outcomes variables. Acta Inform Med. 2012;20(1):32-9.[Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, DesRoches CM, Peugh J, Zapert K, et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA. 2005;293(21):2609-17.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Catino M. Why do doctors practice defensive medicine? The side-effects of medical litigation. Safety Science Monitor. 2011;1(15).[Link]
- Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Medical malpractice. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(3):283-92.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dove JT, Brush JE Jr, Chazal RA, Oetgen WJ. Medical professional liability and health care system reform. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(25):2801-3.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):629-36.[Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Ortashi O, Virdee J, Hassan R, Mutrynowski T, Abu-Zidan F. The practice of defensive medicine among hospital doctors in the United Kingdom. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:42.[Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Hiyama T, Yoshihara M, Tanaka S, Urabe Y, Ikegami Y, Fukuhara T, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(47):7671-5.[Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Rodriguez RM, Anglin D, Hankin A, Hayden SR, Phelps M, McCollough L, et al. A longitudinal study of emergency medicine residents' malpractice fear and defensive medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(6):569-73.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Akıncı SB, Sarıcaoğlu F, Erden İA, Köseoğlu A, Aypar Ü. [The investigation of defensive medicine applications inanesthetists]. Anestezi Derg. 2013;21(1):151-6.[Link]
- Yilmaz A, Demiral G, Şahin G, Yener O, Kocataş A, Bölük S. The Impact of Turkish Penal Code (TPC) which entered into force in 2005 on surgeons. J For Med. 2013;27(3):158-72.[Crossref]
- Kanunu TC. Türk Ceza Kanunu. Retrieved December. 2004;13:2012.
- Kasap H, Akar T, Demirel B, Dursun AZ, Sarı S, Özkök A, et al. [The change of preference prioritiies on examination for specialty in medicine by years of high risky medical branches in medical malpractice]. The Bulletin of Legal Medicine. 2015;20(1):34-7.[Crossref]
- Zwecker P, Azoulay L, Abenhaim HA. Effect of fear of litigation on obstetric care: a nationwide analysis on obstetric practice. Am J Perinatol. 2011;28(4):277-84.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: preliminary data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010;59(3):1-19.[PubMed]
- Nahed BV, Babu MA, Smith TR, Heary RF. Malpractice liability and defensive medicine: a national survey of neurosurgeons. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39237.[Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Elli L, Tenca A, Soncini M, Spinzi G, Buscarini E, Conte D. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Lombardy: between lawsuits and the economic crisis. Dig Liver Dis. 2013;45(6):469-73.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Catino M, Celotti S. The problem of defensive medicine: two Italian surveys. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;148:206-21.[PubMed]
- Sethi MK, Obremskey WT, Natividad H, Mir HR, Jahangir AA. Incidence and costs of defensive medicine among orthopedic surgeons in the United States: a national survey study. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2012;41(2):69-73.[PubMed]
- Vimercati A, Greco P, Loizzi V, Loverro G, Selvaggi L. ["Defensive medicine" in the choice of cesarean section]. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense. 2000;71 Suppl 1:717-21.[PubMed]
- Vaughan D. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. ISBN: 9780226346960[Crossref]
- Reason JT. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. London; New York: Routledge; 2016. ISBN: 9781315543543[Crossref]
- Ferguson J, Fakelmann R. The culture factor. Front Health Serv Manage. 2005;22(1):33-40.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dekker S. Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016.[Crossref]
- Adwok J, Kearns EH. Defensive medicine: effect on costs, quality and access to healthcare. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2013;3(6):29-35.[Link]
- Antoci A, Maccioni AF, Galeotti M, Russu P. Defensive medicine, liability insurance and malpractice litigation in an evolutionary model. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications. 2019;47:414-35.[Crossref]
.: İşlem Listesi