OBJECTIVE As a specialty that treats acute pathology and refractory pain, neurosurgery is at risk for high liability, making the practice of defensive medicine quite common. The extent to which the... Show moreOBJECTIVE As a specialty that treats acute pathology and refractory pain, neurosurgery is at risk for high liability, making the practice of defensive medicine quite common. The extent to which the practice of defensive medicine is linked to experience with malpractice lawsuits remains unclear. The aims of this study were to clarify this by surveying neurosurgeons about the frequency of experiencing medical lawsuits and to show how neurosurgeons reflect on facing such lawsuits.METHODS A survey consisting of 24 questions was distributed among members of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. The survey consisted of four parts: 1) demographics of participants; 2) the way malpractice lawsuits affect the way respondents practice medicine; 3) experiences with medical malpractice lawsuits; and 4) the effect of the medical malpractice environment on one's own practice of medicine.RESULTS There were a total of 490 survey respondents, 83.5% of whom were employed in the US. Of the respondents, 39.5% stated they were frequently or always concerned about being sued, and 77.4% stated their fear had led to a change in how they practice medicine. For 58.4%, this change led to the practice of defensive medicine, while for others it led to more extensive documentation (14.3%) and/or to referring or dropping complex cases (12.4%).Among the respondents, 80.9% at some time were named in a medical malpractice lawsuit and 12.3% more than 10 times. The main concerns expressed about being sued included losing confidence and practicing defensive medicine (17.8%), personal assets being at risk (16.9%), and being named in the National Practitioner Data Bank (15.6%). Given the medical malpractice environment, 58.7% of respondents considered referring complex patient cases, whereas 36.5% considered leaving the practice of medicine. The fear of being sued (OR 4.06, 95% CI 2.53-6.51) and the consideration of limiting the scope of practice (OR 3.08, 1.80-5.20) were both independently associated with higher odds of considering leaving the practice of medicine.CONCLUSIONS The current medicolegal landscape has a profound impact on neurosurgical practice. The fear of being sued, the financial aspects of practicing defensive medicine, and the proportion of neurosurgeons who are considering leaving the practice of medicine emphasize the need for a shift in the medicolegal landscape to a system in which fear of being sued does not play a dominant role and the interests of patients are protected. Show less
Neurosurgical guidelines are fundamental for evidence-based practice and have considerably increased both in number and content over the last decades. Yet, guidelines in neurosurgery are not... Show moreNeurosurgical guidelines are fundamental for evidence-based practice and have considerably increased both in number and content over the last decades. Yet, guidelines in neurosurgery are not without limitations, as they are overwhelmingly based on low-level evidence. Such recommendations have in the past been occasionally overturned by well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), demonstrating the volatility of poorly underpinned evidence. Furthermore, even RCTs in surgery come with several limitations; most notably, interventions are often insufficiently standardized and assume a homogeneous patient population, which is not always applicable to neurosurgery. Lastly, guidelines are often outdated by the time they are published and smaller fields such as neurosurgery may lack a sufficient workforce to provide regular updates. These limitations raise the question of whether it is ethical to use low-level evidence for guideline recommendations, and if so, how strictly guidelines should be adhered to from an ethical and legal perspective. This article aims to offer a critical approach to the ethical and legal status of guidelines in neurosurgery. To this aim, the authors discuss: 1) the current state of neurosurgical guidelines and the evidence they are based on; 2) the degree of implementation of these guidelines; 3) the legal status of guidelines in medical disciplinary cases; and 4) the ethical balance between confident and critical use of guidelines. Ultimately, guidelines are neither laws that should always be followed nor purely academic efforts with little practical use. Every patient is unique, and tailored treatment defined by the surgeon will ensure optimal care; guidelines play an important role in creating a solid base that can be adhered to or deviated from, depending on the situation. From a research perspective, it is inevitable to rely on weaker evidence initially in order to generate more robust evidence later, and clinician-researchers have an ethical duty to contribute to generating and improving neurosurgical guidelines. Show less
OBJECTIVE Neurosurgery is historically seen as a high-risk medical specialty, with a large percentage of neurosurgeons facing complaints during their careers. The Dutch medicolegal system is... Show moreOBJECTIVE Neurosurgery is historically seen as a high-risk medical specialty, with a large percentage of neurosurgeons facing complaints during their careers. The Dutch medicolegal system is characterized by a strong emphasis on informal mediation, which can be accompanied or followed by disciplinary actions. To determine if this system is associated with a low overall risk for medical litigation through disciplinary law, the authors conducted a review of disciplinary cases involving neurosurgeons in the Netherlands.METHODS The authors reviewed legal cases that had been filed against consultant neurosurgeons and neurosurgical residents under the Dutch disciplinary law for medical professions between 2009 and 2019.RESULTS A total of 1322 neurosurgical care-related cases from 2009 to 2019 were reviewed. Fifty-seven (4.3%) cases were filed against neurosurgeons (40 first-instance cases, 17 appeal cases). In total, 123 complaints were filed in the 40 first-instance cases. Most of these cases were related to spine surgery (62.5%), followed by cranial surgery (27.5%), peripheral nerve surgery (7.5%), and pediatric neurosurgery (2.5%). Complaints were filed in all stages of care but were mostly related to preoperative and intraoperative care.CONCLUSIONS The risk for medically related litigation in neurosurgery in the Netherlands through disciplinary law is low but not negligible. Although the absolute number of cases is low, spinal neurosurgery was found to be a risk factor for complaints. The relatively high number of cases that involved the sharing of information suggests that specific improvements-focusing on communication-can be made in order to lower the risk for future litigation. Show less
