Author
Listed:
- Chu-Tzu Chang
- Yung-Po Liaw
Abstract
Background: Medical disputes represent a growing challenge in healthcare, with implications for patient safety, legal liability, and institutional trust. Identifying contributing factors and risk patterns is essential for developing effective prevention strategies. Methods: We analyzed 70 preliminary medical dispute appraisal reports from Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (CSMUH), commissioned by Taiwan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare between 2017 and 2023. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to examine demographic characteristics, institutional and specialty distributions, and associations between duty violations and malpractice determinations. Results: Most physician respondents were male (76.92%), while 56.16% of patients were female. Disputes were most frequently associated with medical centers (35.70%) and clinics (32.90%). In terms of specialty classification, surgical departments accounted for 55.29% of the specialties involved, including obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. Non-surgical departments accounted for 44.71%, including neurology, emergency medicine, and internal medicine. Violations of standard medical practice, incomplete documentation, and inadequate preoperative assessment were significantly associated with malpractice findings. Notably, inadequate preoperative assessment had an odds ratio (OR) of 39.74 (95% CI: 3.33–474.98, P = 0.0036), and disclosure failures had an OR of 12.75 (95% CI: 1.91–84.95, P = 0.0085). Conclusions: Duty violations related to clinical decision-making and informed consent significantly increase the likelihood of malpractice determinations. Targeted interventions in high-risk specialties and outpatient settings may improve legal defensibility and reduce preventable disputes.
Suggested Citation
Chu-Tzu Chang & Yung-Po Liaw, 2025.
"Risk factors and management of medical disputes: An analysis of preliminary appraisal reports,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-12, November.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0334917
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334917
Download full text from publisher
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:plo:pone00:0334917. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.