IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i23p16253-d993542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Malpractice Claims and Incident Reporting: Two Faces of the Same Coin?

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Vetrugno

    (UOS Risk Management Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Federica Foti

    (UOS Risk Management Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Vincenzo M. Grassi

    (UOS Risk Management Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Fabio De-Giorgio

    (UOS Risk Management Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Andrea Cambieri

    (UOS Risk Management Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy
    Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Renato Ghisellini

    (Strategica Risk Consulting Srl, 20123 Milano, Italy)

  • Francesco Clemente

    (UOS Risk Management Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Luca Marchese

    (UOS Risk Management Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Sabatelli

    (Responsabile Centro Regionale Rischio Clinico Regione Lazio, 00145 Rome, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Delogu

    (Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy)

  • Paola Frati

    (Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy)

  • Vittorio Fineschi

    (Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Incident reporting is an important method to identify risks because learning from the reports is crucial in developing and implementing effective improvements. A medical malpractice claims analysis is an important tool in any case. Both incident reports and claims show cases of damage caused to patients, despite incident reporting comprising near misses, cases where no event occurred and no-harm events. We therefore compare the two worlds to assess whether they are similar or definitively different. From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2021, the claims database of Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS collected 843 claims. From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, the incident-reporting database collected 1919 events. In order to compare the two, we used IBNR calculation, usually adopted by the insurance industry to determine loss to a company and to evaluate the real number of adverse events that occurred. Indeed, the number of reported adverse events almost overlapped with the total number of events, which is indicative that incurred-but-not-reported events are practically irrelevant. The distribution of damage events reported as claims in the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 and related to incidents that occurred in the months of the same period, grouped by quarter, was then compared with the distribution of damage events reported as adverse events and sentinel events in the same period, grouped by quarter. The analysis of the claims database showed that the claims trend is slightly decreasing. However, the analysis of the reports database showed that, in the period 2020–2021, the reports trend was increasing. In our study, the comparison of the two, malpractice claims and incident reporting, documented many differences and weak areas of overlap. Nevertheless, this contribution represents the first attempt to compare the two and new studies focusing on single types of adverse events are, therefore, desirable.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Vetrugno & Federica Foti & Vincenzo M. Grassi & Fabio De-Giorgio & Andrea Cambieri & Renato Ghisellini & Francesco Clemente & Luca Marchese & Giuseppe Sabatelli & Giuseppe Delogu & Paola Frat, 2022. "Malpractice Claims and Incident Reporting: Two Faces of the Same Coin?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:16253-:d:993542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/16253/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/16253/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel J. Geiger & Akim Adekpedjou, 2022. "Analysis of IBNR Liabilities with Interevent Times Depending on Claim Counts," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 815-829, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:16253-:d:993542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.