Comparison of Emergency Medicine Malpractice Cases Involving Residents to Nonresident Cases
Authors: Gurley Kiersten L. , Grossman Shamai A. , Janes Margaret , Yu‐Moe C. Winnie , Song Ellen , Tibbles Carrie D. , Shapiro Nathan I. , Rosen Carlo L. 
Published: April 2018

AbstractBackgroundData are lacking on how emergency medicine (EM) malpractice cases with resident involvement differs from cases that do not name a resident.ObjectivesThe objective was to compare malpractice case characteristics in cases where a resident is involved (resident case) to cases that do not involve a resident (nonresident case) and to determine factors that contribute to malpractice cases utilizing EM as a model for malpractice claims across other medical specialties.MethodsWe used data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Strategies’ division Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) to analyze open and closed EM cases asserted from 2009 to 2013. The CBS database is a national repository that contains professional liability data on > 400 hospitals and > 165,000 physicians, representing over 30% of all malpractice cases in the United States (>350,000 claims). We compared cases naming residents (either alone or in combination with an attending) to those that did not involve a resident (nonresident cohort). We reported the case statistics, allegation categories, severity scores, procedural data, final diagnoses, and contributing factors. Fisher's exact test or t‐test was used for comparisons (alpha set at 0.05).ResultsA total of 845 EM cases were identified of which 732 (87%) did not name a resident (nonresident cases), while 113 (13%) included a resident (resident cases). There were higher total incurred losses for nonresident cases. The most frequent allegation categories in both cohorts were “failure or delay in diagnosis/misdiagnosis” and “medical treatment” (nonsurgical procedures or treatment regimens, i.e., central line placement). Allegation categories of safety and security, patient monitoring, hospital policy and procedure, and breach of confidentiality were found in the nonresident cases. Resident cases incurred lower payments on average ($51,163 vs. $156,212 per case). Sixty‐six percent (75) of resident versus 57% (415) of nonresident cases were high‐severity claims (permanent, grave disability or death; p = 0.05). Procedures involved were identified in 32% (36) of resident and 26% (188) of nonresident cases (p = 0.17). The final diagnoses in resident cases were more often cardiac related (19% [21] vs. 10% [71], p < 0.005) whereas nonresident cases had more orthopedic‐related final diagnoses (10% [72] vs. 3% [3], p < 0.01). The most common contributing factors in resident and nonresident cases were clinical judgment (71% vs. 76% [p = 0.24]), communication (27% vs. 30% [p = 0.46]), and documentation (20% vs. 21% [p = 0.95]). Technical skills contributed to 20% (22) of resident cases versus 13% (96) of nonresident cases (p = 0.07) but those procedures involving vascular access (2.7% [3] vs 0.1% [1]) and spinal procedures (3.5% [4] vs. 1.1% [8]) were more prevalent in resident cases (p < 0.05 for each).ConclusionsThere are higher total incurred losses in nonresident cases. There are higher severity scores in resident cases. The overall case profiles, including allegation categories, final diagnoses, and contributing factors between resident and nonresident cases are similar. Cases involving residents are more likely to involve certain technical skills, specifically vascular access and spinal procedures, which may have important implications regarding supervision. Clinical judgment, communication, and documentation are the most prevalent contributing factors in all cases and should be targets for risk reduction strategies.