Characterizing Malpractice Cases Involving Emergency Department Advanced Practice Providers, Physicians in Training, and Attending Physicians

Peter S. Antkowiak,Shin‐Yi Lai,Ryan C. Burke,Margaret Janes,Tarek Zawi,Nathan I. Shapiro,Carlo L. Rosen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14800
2023-09-10
Academic Emergency Medicine
Abstract:Objective To evaluate available characteristics and financial costs of malpractice cases among Advanced Practice Providers (Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants), trainees (medical students, residents, fellows) and attending physicians. Methods A retrospective analysis of claims occurring in the emergency department from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019 contained in the Candello database. Cases were classified according to the provider type(s) involved: Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician Assistant (PA), trainee, or cases which did not identify an extender as being substantially involved in the adverse event that resulted in the case ("no extender"). Results There were 5,854 cases identified with a total gross indemnity paid of $1,007,879,346. Of these cases, 193 (3.3%) involved an NP, 513 (8.8%) involved a PA, 535 (9.1%) involved a trainee, and 4,568 (78.0%) were no extender. Cases where a trainee was involved account for the highest average gross indemnity paid whereas no extender cases are the lowest. NP and PA cases differed by contributing factors compared to no extender cases: Clinical Judgment (NP 89.1% vs no extender 76.8%, p<0.0001; PA 84.6% vs no extender, p < .0001), Documentation (NP 23.3% vs no extender 17.8%, p=0.0489; PA 25.9% vs no extender, p<0.0001) and Supervision (NP 22.3% vs no extender 1.8%, p<0.0001; PA 25.7% vs no extender p
emergency medicine
What problem does this paper attempt to address?