12/1/2014 Medico-legal Risks in Pathology

12/1/2014

1

© The Canadian Medical Protective Association cmpa-acpm.ca

Medico-legal Risks in Pathology

Dr. Kathryn ReduckaPhysician Risk Manager, CMPA

Maritime Pathology, Halifax, NS

November 29, 2014


Faculty / Presenter Disclosure

Faculty: Dr Kathryn Reducka

Employee of: CMPA

Relationships with commercial interests:

- Grants / Research Support: None

- Speakers Bureau / Honoraria: None

- Consulting Fees: None

- Other: None

Conflict of Interest - I have no financial or professional affiliation with any organization thatcan be perceived as a conflict of interest in the context of this presentation.

Copyright - Not to be distributed without written permission of CMPA. No audio recording,video recording, or photography is allowed without CMPA's permission.

Information is for general educational purposes only and is not intended to provide specificprofessional medical or legal advice or constitute a “standard of care”.

Media Asset Copyright - All non-CMPA audiovisual files are used with permission and for educational purposes only. All rights belong to the originalowner as per license agreements – Thinkstock, YouTube and others as required.


Objectives

• Identify three areas of medico-legal risk forpathologists

• Incorporate two strategies to reduce risk in yourlab/practice

12/1/2014

2


3 Ds that will affect your defensibility

• Delay in diagnosis

• Documentation

• Diligence with protocols


Professional Liability forPathologists

2009 - 2013


10987654321

$1 Million$500,000$250,000$125,000$64,000$32,000$16,000$8,000$4,000$2,000

Welcome to

Who Wants toDefend a Million

Dollar LegalAction ?

50:50

Adapted from Teachnet.com

12/1/2014

3


©CMPA www.cmpa-acpm.ca

A: 20%

C: 50%

B: 40%

D: 60%

50:50

5

4

3

2

1

$ 1 Million

$500,000

$100,000

$10,000

$5,000

Overall about 34% of CMPA legalactions are settled. What % of legalactions involving pathologists haveto be settled?



B: 40%

50:50

5

4

3

2

1

$ 1 Million

$500,000

$100,000

$10,000

$5,000

Overall about 34% of CMPA legalactions are settled. What % of legalactions involving pathologists haveto be settled?


Legal Outcome - ComparisonLegal Actions Closed 2009 - 2013

51%

2%

44%

3%

36%

7%

55%

2%

Dismissal Judgment for Physician

Settlement Judgment for Plaintiff

Pathologists (N = 59) CMPA (N = 4,520)

12/1/2014

4


Hindsight and Hindsight Bias

BEFORE arrivingat a final diagnosis

AFTER determiningthe final diagnosis

AFTER a delay in makinga diagnosis or a

misdiagnosis

The puzzle is solved, the final diagnosis is clear


Where is the abnormality?


Where is the abnormality?

12/1/2014

5


System Failure(s)

Organization

Culture

Incompletepolicies

Analytic

SpecimenProcessingCognitivedispositions

Pre-Analytic

PoorsamplingInadequatehistoryLost specimen

Post-analytic

Disseminate reportsClinician interpretsClinician acts

Funding &Resources

Harm

From J. Reason70%



A: < 1 %

C: 20%

B: 5%

D: 55%

50:50

5

4

3

2

1

$ 1 Million

$500,000

$100,000

$10,000

$5,000

In the last 5 years what % closedpathology legal actions have acatastrophic outcome for thepatient?



A: < 1 %

50:50

5

4

3

2

1

$ 1 Million

$500,000

$100,000

$10,000

$5,000

In the last 5 years what % closedpathology legal actions have acatastrophic outcome for thepatient?

12/1/2014

6


Physical Disability of PatientsLegal Actions Closed 2009 - 2013

* Number of patients

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

None Minor Major Catastrophe Death

Percent of patients

Pathologists (N = 58*)

CMPA (N = 4,640*)



A: Communication Issues

C: Administrative issues

B: Delay/ Missed Diagnosis

D: Performance issues

50:50

5

4

3

2

1

$ 1 Million

$500,000

$100,000

$10,000

$5,000

The most common critical incidentin closed legal actions involvingpathologist is?



B: Delay/ Missed Diagnosis

50:50

5

4

3

2

1

$ 1 Million

$500,000

$100,000

$10,000

$5,000

The most common critical incidentin closed legal actions involvingpathologist is?

12/1/2014

7


Critical Factor59 Legal Actions Closed 2009 - 2013

*Number of critical factors

05

1015202530354045

Number of critical factors


What Can Lead to Misdiagnosis?


78%of diagnostic errors are

due to misinterpretationor misread of specimens

12/1/2014

8


Who Determines the Standard of Care?

Colleagues of similartraining and

experience (experts)


Remember

Error in Judgment = Negligence


What Are the Top 3 Conditions to beMisdiagnosed?

1. Neoplasms / diseases of the breast2. Neoplasms / diseases of the digestive tract3. Neoplasms / diseases of the skin

12/1/2014

9


63% of cases involved cancer delay indiagnosis/treatment

Arch Path Lab Med. 2006;130:617-619


Arch Path Lab Med. 2006;130:617-619


From CMPA cases

• Missed diagnosis

– abnormality seen but not reported

– abnormality present but not seen

• missed on exam

• missed on section / staining

• technical error

• sampling error

12/1/2014

10


From CMPA cases

• Incorrect diagnosis

– over-interpretation of findings

– failure to consider alternative diagnosis

– seeing what is expected, rather than what isthere


15 % of cases involved a mix-upof specimens/slides

• Mix-up of slides

• Mislabelling of specimens

• Lack of quality controlmeasures

• Failure to comply withexisting laboratoryprocesses


Let’s Look at Some Cases

12/1/2014

11


Case #1


Unable to Obtain Expert Support

• Settled on behalf of Path1


Negligence: the Legal Concept

12/1/2014

12



DUTY OF CARE1. The courts say a duty of

care arises naturally out of adoctor-patient relationship.



BREACH OF DUTY2. In determining a breach ofduty of care to a patient, thecourts consider the standardof care and skill that might

reasonably have been appliedin similar circumstances by acolleague – a normal prudent

practitioner of similartraining and experience. The

courts do not expectperfection.


“A doctor is not expected to be infallible, only toexercise reasonable care, skill and judgment incoming to a diagnosis. If this is done, thedoctor will not be held liable even if thediagnosis is mistaken”

(Picard & Robertson)

Courts are generally sympathetic

12/1/2014

13


Crits v Sylvester, 1956

“Every medical practitioner must bring to his task areasonable degree of skill and knowledge and mustexercise a reasonable degree of care. He is bound toexercise that degree of care and skill which couldreasonably be expected of a normal, prudent practitionerof the same experience and standing, and if he holdshimself out as a specialist, a higher degree of skill isrequired of him than one who does not profess to be soqualified by special training and ability.”



HARM OR INJURY3. To establish negligence itis not enough for the patient

to demonstrate that thephysician has breached duty

of care. The patient musthave suffered harm or injury

because of the breach



CAUSATION4. The patient must

establish the breach of dutycaused or contributed to

the injury sustained.

12/1/2014

14


Anatomy of a Lawsuit



Stature of Limitations timelines are long


Limitation Periods in Canada

12/1/2014

15


What NOT to do when you get a SOC


Get a grip. Get advice. Take the advice.

Better yet…call the CMPA



12/1/2014

16


Doctors’ involvement in lawsuits

• As defendants

• As medical experts

• As witnesses of fact


Testimony – Fact Witness

• Usually in the role of treating physician

• Ensure that a consent is signed

– Even if your patient’s lawyer calls

• A court summons to witness

– Mandates release of the record and does not requireconsent for release

• Court trumps confidentiality to patient

• You are not required to give an “expert opinion”


Testimony – Expert

• Are you really an “expert?”

• Remember the definition of“standard of care”

– Different for generalists vsspecialists

• What is your role in court?

• Duty is to the court not your“employer”

12/1/2014

17






Court?!

12/1/2014

18


Testimony

• “Do I have to do it?”• The unfortunate answer is “MAYBE”


Case #1


In Challenging Cases, Have YouConsidered?

• Further exclusionary / confirmatoryinvestigations

• Obtaining a second opinion

• Documentation of informal 2nd

opinions

• Wording of the report

12/1/2014

19


AJCP 2000


Am J Surg Pathol 2008 May;32(5)732-7

Mandatory second opinion in surgicalpathology referral material: clinicalconsequences of major disagreements

– Second opinion surgical pathology

– 2.3% major diagnostic disagreements


Consider 2nd opinion

• Do the pathology findings correspond withthe referring MD’s clinical impression?

• Highly significant diagnosis with irreversiblesurgery?

• Rare disorder

• Problematic cases

12/1/2014

20


Be Careful What You Dictate


Path Report:

• “10 lymph node fragments recovered with noneshowing metastatic deposits and the remaindershowing only reactive changes”

• Should have said:

“10 lymph node fragments recovered with oneshowing metastatic deposits and the remaindershowing only reactive changes”


Wording your reports

“Diagnostic for metastatic squamouscell carcinoma”

Experts Would Have Reported :

“ Highly atypical squamous cellssuspicious for squamous cell ca:

Recommend biopsy”

12/1/2014

21


Am J Surg Pathol 2012 Jan;36(1):e1-5




• Define pathological terms

• Discuss DDx for challenging cases

• Document recommendations for follow-up tests or treatment

• Document verbal consultations

• Document what/ whether clinical infoprovided

Reports consider


12/1/2014

22


Reports consider

• If provisional dx until tests/ consult available

• Provide supplemental report if NB new infoavailable after initial report

• Document interdepartmental 2nd opinions onnew malignancies , diagnostic challenges,uncommon dx (bone, soft tissue tumors)



Documentation of Discussions

• Documentation of informal 2nd opinions

• Document calls to clinicians re substantivechanges

• Document telephoneadvice andcommunications withother HCP


Second Opinion

Could I also get your opinion on this case?33 y.o… foot lesion

I think it’s a Spitz nevus - how would youcomment on adequacy of excision ?

Thanks

As we discussed, I think that this is a nodularmelanoma.

I would be interested in knowing how longit has been present.

12/1/2014

23


Legal Actions Pathologists:Administrative Issues

• Non-compliance with existing fail safe system

– Mix-up specimens/ reports/ cell contamination

• Follow-up system



Case #2

12/1/2014

24


Legal Outcome

• CMPA settlement the plaintiff on behalf of Pathand FP


Pathologist as Advocate

• Advising authorities of needs

– New procedures in literature

– Reported deficiencies of current procedures / policies

– Equipment deficiencies / improvements

– Safety issues for patients, staff

Put it in writing!


Risk management

• Are there clear policies and procedures: inhandling, labeling, processing and reporting oftissue specimens?

• Requisition contain the pertinent clinical andspecimen information as well as the correctpatient identifiers?

• Do the patient identifiers on the specimen beingexamined match the requisition and the finalpathology report?

12/1/2014

25


©CMPA www.cmpa-acpm.caD

D D

50:50

5

4

3

2

1

$ 1 Million

$500,000

$100,000

$10,000

$5,000

What are the 3 things that canaffect your defensibility aspathologist?


3 Ds that will affect your defensibility

• Delay in diagnosis

• Documentation

• Diligence with protocols


Bottom Line

• Wrong diagnosis ≠ equal negligence

• Consider second opinion in challenging cases

• Consider speaking with referring MD ifdiagnosis unclear or clarification needed

• Follow policies to prevent mix-ups withspecimens/reports

• Document your DDx, evidence for Dx ,recommendations ,discussions with colleagues

12/1/2014

26


1-800-267-6522

@cmpamembers


12/1/2014 Medico-legal Risks in Pathology

Documents

Transcript of 12/1/2014 Medico-legal Risks in Pathology