Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical and Medicolegal Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • 769 Accesses

Abstract

Despite the fact that physicians seek to provide excellent clinical care for their patients, issues of medical malpractice may arise for even the most conscientious and well-trained physician. Urologists face an 11% annual risk of being involved in a malpractice claim, with about 3% of urologists per year facing a claim that results in a payment to a plaintiff. As such, it is important for urologists to be informed about medical malpractice. This chapter seeks to inform urologists about the medical malpractice system in the United States, provide data about malpractice claims in urology, educate readers about the malpractice claim process, and review strategies for preventing malpractice claims, as well as provide an overview on malpractice insurance and tort reform. In addition, we discuss medicolegal considerations in new surgical technology and techniques, as well as inform urologists about ethical considerations that they should be knowledgeable about in their practice, such as the principles of medical ethics, informed consent, conflicts of interest, expert witness testimony, and in-office ancillary procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):629–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Singh H. National Practitioner Data Bank (2014): Adverse Action and Medical Malpractice Reports (1990–2014) [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/analysistool

  4. Gower J. 2015 medical malpractice payout analysis [Internet]. www.diederichhealthcare.com. 2015 [cited 2016 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.diederichhealthcare.com/the-standard/2015-medical-malpractice-payout-analysis/

  5. Kaplan GW. Malpractice risks for urologists. Urology. 1998;51(2):183–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sobel DL, Loughlin KR, Coogan CL. Medical malpractice liability in clinical urology: a survey of practicing urologists. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1847–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hsieh MH, Tan AG, Meng MV. Medical malpractice in American urology: 22-year national review of the impact of caps and implications for contemporary practice. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1944–9. –discussion1949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sherer BA, Coogan CL. The current state of medical malpractice in urology. Urology. 2015;86(1):2–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Perrotti M, Badger W, Prader S, Moran ME. Medical malpractice in urology, 1985 to 2004: 469 consecutive cases closed with indemnity payment. J Urol. 2006;176(5):2154–7. –discussion2157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Benson JS, Coogan CL. Urological malpractice: analysis of indemnity and claim data from 1985 to 2007. J Urol. 2010;184(3.) 1086–90–quiz1235

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sherer BA, Boydston KC, Coogan CL. Urological malpractice: claim trend analysis and severity of injury. Urol Pract. 2016;3:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Knoll AM. The role of private counsel in medical malpractice cases. Med Econ. 2016;93(11):58–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Floyd TK. Medical malpractice: trends in litigation. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(7.) 1822–5–1825.e1

    Google Scholar 

  14. Feld AD, Moses RE. Most doctors win: what to do if sued for medical malpractice. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(6):1346–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liebman CB, Hyman CS. A mediation skills model to manage disclosure of errors and adverse events to patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(4):22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Githens PB, Sloan FA. Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries. JAMA. 1992;267(10):1359–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vincent C, Young M, Phillips A. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action. Lancet. 1994;343(8913):1609–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Renkema E, Broekhuis M, Ahaus K. Conditions that influence the impact of malpractice litigation risk on physicians’ behavior regarding patient safety. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lichtstein DM, Materson BJ, Spicer DW. Reducing the risk of malpractice claims. Hosp Pract (1995). 1999;34(7.) 69–72–75–6–79

    Google Scholar 

  20. Volpintesta E. The threat of malpractice suits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(11):2058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Commission TJ. Hospital accreditation standards. Oakbrook Terrace: Joint Commission Resources; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clinton HR, Obama B. Making patient safety the centerpiece of medical liability reform. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(21):2205–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gallagher TH, Studdert D, Levinson W. Disclosing harmful medical errors to patients. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(26):2713–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kraman SS, Hamm G. Risk management: extreme honesty may be the best policy. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(12):963–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. O’leary MP, Baum NH, Bohnert WW, Blizzard R, Bonney WW, Cooper TP, et al. 2003 American Urological Association Gallup survey: physician practice patterns, cryosurgery/brachytherapy, male infertility, female urology and insurance/professional liability. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2363–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, Studdert DM. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1569–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Medical malpractice. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(3):283–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Konety BR, Dhawan V, Allareddy V, Joslyn SA. Impact of malpractice caps on use and outcomes of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. J Urol. 2005;173(6):2085–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kass JS, Rose RV. Medical malpractice reform–historical approaches, alternative models, and communication and resolution programs. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(3):299–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cooper JD, Clayman RV, Krummel TM, Schauer PR, Thompson C, Moreno JD. Inside the operating room–balancing the risks and benefits of new surgical procedures: a collection of perspectives and panel discussion. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75 Suppl 6:S37–48–discussionS49–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hampson LA, Brajtbord JS, Meng MV. The future of quality in urologic oncology: evaluating the horizon of surgical standards. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(6):735–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hofer MD, Meeks JJ, Cashy J, Kundu S, Zhao LC. Impact of increasing prevalence of minimally invasive prostatectomy on open prostatectomy observed in the national inpatient sample and national surgical quality improvement program. J Endourol. 2013;27(1):102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Colaco M, Sandberg J, Badlani G. Influencing factors leading to malpractice litigation in radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1770–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, Albala DM, Price MM, Polascik TJ, et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(4):785–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rogers SO, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, Puopolo AL, Yoon C, Brennan TA, et al. Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery. 2006;140(1):25–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Liberman D, Trinh Q-D, Jeldres C, Valiquette L, Zorn KC. Training and outcome monitoring in robotic urologic surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9(1):17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Livingston EH, Harwell JD. The medicolegal aspects of proctoring. Am J Surg. 2002;184(1):26–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rashid HH, Leung Y-YM, Rashid MJ, Oleyourryk G, Valvo JR, Eichel L. Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006;68(1):75–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol. 2002;168(3):945–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;170(5):1738–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting – the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol. 2005;174(1):269–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Minimally Invasive Mini-Fellowship Program [Internet]. University of California, Irvine; [cited 2016 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.urology.uci.edu/education_resources.shtml

  44. Delineation of Privelages for Laparoscopic Urological Procedures [Internet]. 2011 ed. American Urological Association; [cited 2016 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.auanet.org/education/policy-statements/laparoscopic-urological-procedures.cfm

  45. Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM, et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Urologic Robotic Surgery Online Course [Internet]. American Urological Association; [cited 2016 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/university/modules/module-courseInfo.cfm?id=428

  47. Association AU. Standard Operating Practices (SOP’S) for Urologic Robotic Surgery [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/about/SOP-Urologic-Robotic-Surgery.pdf

  48. Association AM. Principles of medical ethics [Internet]. 2001st ed. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page

  49. Schloenhoff v Society of New York Hospital 211 NY125. New York; 1914.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Natanson v Kline: 186 Kan. 393, 350 P. 2d 1093. United States Court of Appeals; 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Canterbury v Spence: 464 F.2d 772. District of Columbia; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jones B. Legal aspects of consent. BJU Int. 2000;86(3):275–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Statements on Principles [Internet]. 12 ed. American College of Surgeons; [cited 2016 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/stonprin#anchor171960

  54. Hampson LA, Montie JE. Conflict of interest in urology. J Urol. 2012;187(6):1971–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Association AU. AUA disclosure policy [Internet]. 2016 ed. 2016 Feb. Available from: http://www.auanet.org/education/aua-disclosure-policy.cfm

  56. American Urological Assocation, editor. Guiding principles for membership interactions with industry [Internet]. 2010 ed. [cited 2016 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.auanet.org/education/policy-statements/membership-interactions-with-industry.cfm

  57. Association AU. Expert witness testimony in medical liability cases [Internet]. 2016 ed. 2016 May. Available from: http://www.auanet.org/education/policy-statements/testimony-in-medical-liability-cases.cfm

  58. Sunaryo PL, Svider PF, Jackson-Rosario I, Eloy JA. Expert witness testimony in urology malpractice litigation. Urology. 2014;83(4):704–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Mitchell JM. The prevalence of physician self-referral arrangements after Stark II: evidence from advanced diagnostic imaging. Health Aff. 2007;26(3):w415–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hillman BJ, Goldsmith J. Imaging: the self-referral boom and the ongoing search for effective policies to contain it. Health Aff. 2010;29(12):2231–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Office USG. Medicare: higher use of advanced imaging services by providers who self-refer costing medicare millions [Internet]. United States Government Accountability Office; 2012 Nov p. 54. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=LvpQkgEACAAJ&dq=higher+use+of+advanced+imaging+services+by+providers+who+self+refer&hl=&cd=4&source=gbs_api

  62. Romano DH. Self-referral of imaging and increased utilization: some practical perspectives on tackling the dilemma. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6(11):773–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Schneider JE, Ohsfeldt RL, Scheibling CM, Jeffers SA. Organizational boundaries of medical practice: the case of physician ownership of ancillary services. Health Econ Rev. 2012;2(1):7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Association AU. AUA in-office ancillary services guiding principles [Internet]. 2013 ed. Available from: http://www.auanet.org/about/policy-statements/ancillary-guiding-principles.cfm

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Ave, Box 0738, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Lindsay A. Hampson MD

  2. Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA

    Maxwell V. Meng MD

Authors
  1. Lindsay A. Hampson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maxwell V. Meng MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxwell V. Meng MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    René Sotelo

  2. Department of Urology, Hospital CIMA, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

    Juan Arriaga

  3. USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Monish Aron

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hampson, L.A., Meng, M.V. (2018). Ethical and Medicolegal Considerations. In: Sotelo, R., Arriaga, J., Aron, M. (eds) Complications in Robotic Urologic Surgery . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62277-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62276-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62277-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation