Advertisement

A review of data collected on 117,000 claims and lawsuits by the Physician Insurers Association of American (PIAA) reveals that medication errors are the second most frequent reason for claims against physicians and result, cumulatively, in the second highest indemnity paid, following faulty diagnosis and evaluation. According to a National Center for Health Statistics report in 1992, medications are ordered or provided at more than 19 million patient visits a year to an ophthalmologist’s office. With such a large volume of prescribing activity, it is not surprising that claims related to drug prescribing constitute a significant proportion of all claims for malpractice damages in ophthalmology.

This chapter aims to help practicing ophthalmologists avoid malpractice litigation related to prescribing and using drugs in ophthalmic care. A series of topics pertinent to prescribing and using drugs in a routine ophthalmic practice are presented in a question and answer format.

Keywords

Diabetic Macular Edema Retinal Vein Occlusion Generic Substitution Malpractice Claim Medical Marijuana 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Medication Error Study. Washington, DC: Physician Insurers Association of America; June 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brick DC. Medication errors result in costly claims for ophthalmologists. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;40:232-236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medi-cine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312:71-72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller JW. Using a drug before the risks and benefits are known from a phase 3 clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;124:1029-1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trobe JD, Fendrick AM. The effectiveness initiative. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:715-717.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bettman JW. Seven hundred medicolegal cases in ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1990;97: 1379-1384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kraushar MF, Robb JH. Ophthalmic malpractice lawsuits with large monetary awards. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:333-337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mandal K, Fraser SG. The incidence of prescribing errors in an eye hospital. BMC Ophthalmol 2005;5:4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gandhi TK, Weingart SN, Seger AC, Borus J, Burdick E, Poon EG, Leape LL, Bates DW. Outpatient prescribing errors and the impact of computerized prescribing. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:837-841.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bettman JW, Monica ML. Nonmedical issues in claims against ophthalmologist. OMIC pub-lication archives. Digest, Winter 1994. Available at: http://www.omic.com/resources/risk_ man/deskref/medicaloffice/general/8.cfm.
  11. 11.
    Abood RR. Pharmacy Practice and the Law, 4th ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2005:101-144.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cantor LB. Ophthalmic generic drug approval process: implications for efficacy and safety. J Glaucoma 1997;6:344-349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiscella RG, Gaynes BI. Equivalence of generic and brand-name ophthalmic products. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2001;58:616-617.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weir RE, Zaidi FH, Charteris DG, Bunce C, Soltani, Lovering AM. Variability in the content of Indian generic ciprofloxacin eye drops. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:1094-1096.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fiscella RG, Green A, Patuszynski DH, Wilensky J. Medical therapy cost considerations for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136:18-25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Demorest BD. Minimize the risks of patient co-management. OMIC publication archives. Digest, Spring 1995. Available at: http://www.omic.com/resources/risk_man/desref/coman-agement/1.cfm.
  17. 17.
    Lee PP, Yang JC. The nonapproved use of medications. Ophthalmology 1991;98:1071-1074.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Craven ER, Moran EC. Medical implications of using off-label drugs and devices. OMIC publication archives. Digest, Winter, 1996. Available at: http://www.omic.com/resources/ risk_man/deskred/clinical/28.cfm.
  19. 19.
    Abood RR. Pharmacy Practice and the Law, 4th ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2005:145-183.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Apt L, Gaffney WL. Toxic effects of topical eye medications in infants and children. In: Tasman W, Jaeger EA, eds. Duane’s Clinical Ophthalmology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002;43:133342-133752.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Samples JR, Meyer SM. Use of ophthalmic medications in pregnant and nursing women. Am J Ophthalmol 1988;106:616-623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lustgarten JS, Podos SM. Topical timolol and the nursing mother. Arch Ophthalmol 1983;101:1381-1382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boniuk V, Nockowitz R. Perforation of the globe during retrobulbar injection: medicolegal aspects of four cases. Surv Ophthalmol 1994;39:141-145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iezzoni LI. Discharge blindly. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Web Morbidity and Mortality (Web M&M) Rounds on the Web. Case and Commentary. December 2005. Available at: http://www.webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=111.
  25. 25.
    Zimmerman T. Facilitating patient compliance in glaucoma therapy. Surv Ophthalmol 1983;289(Suppl):S252-S257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deutsche RA. Discuss potential side effects of eye drops. OMIC publication archives. Argus, January 1992. Available at: http://www.omic.com/resources/risk_man/deskred/clinical/9.cfm.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon K. Law
    • 1
  1. 1.OphthalmologyJules Stein Eye InstituteLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations