Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr 18;15:167. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0823-2.

Can shared decision-making reduce medical malpractice litigation? A systematic review.

Author information

1
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA. marie-anne.durand@dartmouth.edu.
2
Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. marie-anne.durand@dartmouth.edu.
3
Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, Boston, USA. bmoulton@imdfoundation.org.
4
Harvard School of Public Health and Boston University Law School, Boston, USA. bmoulton@imdfoundation.org.
5
Boston University Law School, Boston, USA. bmoulton@imdfoundation.org.
6
Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. lizzie.cockle@gmail.com.
7
Support Unit for Research Evidence, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. MannMK@cardiff.ac.uk.
8
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA. glynelwyn@gmail.com.
9
The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Hanover, USA. glynelwyn@gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

To explore the likely influence and impact of shared decision-making on medical malpractice litigation and patients' intentions to initiate litigation.

METHODS:

We included all observational, interventional and qualitative studies published in all languages, which assessed the effect or likely influence of shared decision-making or shared decision-making interventions on medical malpractice litigation or on patients' intentions to litigate. The following databases were searched from inception until January 2014: CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, Lexis library, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge. We also hand searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Downs & Black quality assessment checklist, the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme qualitative tool, and the Critical Appraisal Guidelines for single case study research were used to assess the quality of included studies.

RESULTS:

6562 records were screened and 19 articles were retrieved for full-text review. Five studies wee included in the review. Due to the number and heterogeneity of included studies, we conducted a narrative synthesis adapted from the ESRC guidance for narrative synthesis. Four themes emerged. The analysis confirms the absence of empirical data necessary to determine whether or not shared decision-making promoted in the clinical encounter can reduce litigation. Three out of five included studies provide retrospective and simulated data suggesting that ignoring or failing to diagnose patient preferences, particularly when no effort has been made to inform and support understanding of possible harms and benefits, puts clinicians at a higher risk of litigation. Simulated scenarios suggest that documenting the use of decision support interventions in patients' notes could offer some level of medico-legal protection. Our analysis also indicated that a sizeable proportion of clinicians prefer ordering more tests and procedures, irrespective of patient informed preferences, as protection against litigation.

CONCLUSIONS:

Given the lack of empirical data, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not shared decision-making and the use of decision support interventions can reduce medical malpractice litigation. Further investigation is required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

This review was registered on PROSPERO.

REGISTRATION NUMBER:

CRD42012002367 .

PMID:
25927953
PMCID:
PMC4409730
DOI:
10.1186/s12913-015-0823-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center