Advertisement

Medicolegal View and Implications

  • Kevin Lewis
Chapter
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

In common with most human endeavours, the provision of oral health care involves risk. Medicolegal risk has assumed increasing importance over recent decades—partly as a reflection of increased consumerism, the end of the era of medical paternalism and increased regulation, scrutiny and accountability. But also partly because scientific and technological advances and the emergence of new techniques have changed the risks themselves, and partly because of the cost of health care (however it is funded).

In the delivery of oral health care and treatment, a clinician needs to develop a 360° awareness of risk, and constructive strategies for managing it. Risk need not be the enemy of safe and successful healthcare provision; it becomes so if it is disregarded or misunderstood.

An important feature of health care is the likely imbalance between the specialised knowledge and understanding of the clinician and the relative lack of knowledge of the recipient of that care. It is the clinician’s role to bridge that gap. This chapter examines the nature of the risks associated with certain procedures, how and why they arise and how the clinician can approach the process of managing those risks. It provides an international perspective of how the law impacts upon healthcare delivery, and how legal developments can influence clinical practice.

References

  1. 1.
    Davidow M, Dacin PA. Understanding and influencing consumer complaint behaviour. Adv Consum Res. 1997;24:450–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vincent C, Young M, et al. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action. Lancet. 1994;343:1609–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mangels LS. Tips from doctors who’ve never been sued. Med Econ. 1991;68(4):56–8, 60–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lester GW, Smith SG. Listening and talking to patients: a remedy for malpractice suits? West J Med. 1993;158:268–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shapiro RS, Simpson DE, et al. A survey of sued and non-sued physicians and suing patients. Arch Int Med. 1989;149:2190–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickson G, et al. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2951–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beckman HB, Markakis KM, et al. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice: lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Int Med. 1994;154(12):1365–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiMatteo MR, Taranta A, et al. Predicting patient satisfaction from physician’s non-verbal communication skills. Med Care. 1980;18(4):376–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bal BS, Choma TJ. What to disclose? Revisiting informed consent. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(5):1346–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gover B, Aylward S. Informed consent: from material risks to material information. Supplement to February/March 2016 issue of dispatch magazine. Toronto: Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario; 2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adams J. Risky business. London: Adam Smith Institute; 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonsson PM, Ovretveit J. Patient claims and complaints data for improving patient safety. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2008;21(1):60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vandersteegen T, Marneffe W, et al. The impact of no-fault compensation on health care expenditure: an empirical study of OECD countries. Health Policy. 2015;119(3):367–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montanera D. The importance of negative defensive medicine on the effects of malpractice reform. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(3):355–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wallis KA. No-fault, no difference: no-fault compensation for medical injury and healthcare ethics and practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67(654):38–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jonsson PM. Reducing error, improving safety. No-fault compensation protects patients in Nordic countries. BMJ. 2000;321(7259):506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bunting RF, et al. Practical Risk Management for physicians. J Health Risk Manag. 1998;18(4):29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.British Dental Association/BDA IndemnityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations