Journals / Adli Tıp Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 35 Sayı: 3

Comparison of decisions of Third Supreme Council of The Council of Forensic Medicine and other expert reports in allegation of medical malpractice cases

Adli Tıp Kurumu Adli Tıp Üçüncü Üst Kurulunun kararları ile diğer bilirkişi raporlarının tıbbi uygulama hatası açısından karşılaştırılması

Ömer Faruk Şimşeker(Fevziçakmak Mahallesi Kımız Sokak No: 1, 34196, Istanbul, Turkiye)
Yalçın Büyük(Fevziçakmak Mahallesi Kımız Sokak No: 1, 34196, Istanbul, Turkiye)
Caner Beşkoç(Fevziçakmak Mahallesi Kımız Sokak No: 1, 34196, Istanbul, Turkiye)
Pages
162–175
Publication Date
2021-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As determined in this study, the expert system will be ensured to progress in a healthy way with the steps to be taken such as making detailed legal arrangements for the institutions and individuals who will provide private expert services in order to ensure that the judicial process can proceed impartially and independently, organizing vocational trainings, and establishing ethical expert committees in terms of the reports issued.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:INTRODUCTION: The significant increase in medical malpractice claims in recent years and the fact that the evaluation of medical practices requires technical knowledge and expertise has also manifested itself with a significant increase in the applications of judicial authorities and parties to experts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: In this work, 254 files alleging medical malpractice, which were commented by Third Supreme Council of The Council of Forensic Medicine in 2018 and 2019, were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As determined in this study, the expert system will be ensured to progress in a healthy way with the steps to be taken such as making detailed legal arrangements for the institutions and individuals who will provide private expert services in order to ensure that the judicial process can proceed impartially and independently, organizing vocational trainings, and establishing ethical expert committees in terms of the reports issued.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Tıbbi uygulama hatası · malpraktis · bilirkişilik

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The significant increase in medical malpractice claims in recent years and the fact that the evaluation of medical practices requires technical knowledge and expertise has also manifested itself with a significant increase in the applications of judicial authorities and parties to experts. In this study, it is aimed to discuss the contribution of expert reports regarding medical malpractice to decision making mechanisms. METHODS: In this work, 254 files alleging medical malpractice, which were commented by Third Supreme Council of The Council of Forensic Medicine in 2018 and 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Complaints are the field of gynecology and obstetrics in 15.4%, emergency medicine branches in 13.8% and more than one field in 15.4% of the files. In addition to this, 63.8% of the files received opinions from experts other than The Council of Forensic Medicine. When the remaining expert reports considered, 40.3% of them were made by university hospitals’ related branches while 27.9% by private experts. Among the reports issued in public institutions, a fraction corresponding to 45.9% has a contradiction with the Upper Assembly. On the other hand, it was observed that there was a contradiction at the rate of 67.7% in the private expert reports. CONCLUSION: In the expertise system in our country, although there are legal regulations regarding the supervision of official expert institutions, there is no mechanism to supervise the decisions made by private experts. As determined in this study, the expert system will be ensured to progress in a healthy way with the steps to be taken such as making detailed legal arrangements for the institutions and individuals who will provide private expert services in order to ensure that the judicial process can proceed impartially and independently, organizing vocational trainings, and establishing ethical expert committees in terms of the reports issued.

Özet

AMAÇ: Tıbbi uygulama hatası iddialarında son yıllarda belirgin bir artış olması ve tıbbi uygulamaların değerlendirilmesinin teknik bilgi ve uzmanlık gerektirmesi, adli makamların ve tarafların bilirkişilere başvurularında da belirgin bir artışla kendini göstermiştir. Bu çalışmada tıbbi uygulama hatası ile ilgili alınan bilirkişi raporlarının karar oluşturma mekanizmalarına katkısını tartışmak amaçlanmıştır. YÖNTEM: Bu çalışmada 2018 ve 2019 yıllarında Adli Tıp Kurumu Adli Tıp Üçüncü Üst Kurulu tarafından görüş bildirilen tıbbi uygulama hatası iddiası bulunan 254 dosya retrospektif olarak incelenmiştir. BULGULAR: Dosyaların %15,4’ünde kadın hastalıkları ve doğum, %13,8’inde acil tıp branşlarından ve %15,4’ünde birden fazla branştan şikâyetçi olunduğu, tıbbi uygulama hatalarının en sık tanı aşamasında meydana geldiği, en sık özel hastanelerden şikâyetçi olunduğu fakat tıbbi uygulama hatasının en sık devlet hastanelerinde tespit edildiği görülmüştür. Değerlendirilen dosyaların %55,1’inde tıbbi uygulama hatası olmadığı, %42,1’inde tıbbi uygulama hatası olduğu, %2,8’inde değerlendirme yapılamadığı tespit edilmiştir. Dosyaların %63,8’inde Adli Tıp Kurumu dışında başka bilirkişilerden görüş alındığı, diğer bilirkişi raporlarının %40,3’ünün üniversite hastaneleri ilgili branş anabilim dalları, %27,9’unun özel bilirkişiler tarafından düzenlendiği, kamu kuruluşlarında düzenlenen bilirkişi raporlarında %45,9 oranında Üst Kurul ile çelişki bulunurken, özel bilirkişi raporlarında %67,7 oranında çelişki bulunduğu görülmüştür. SONUÇ: Ülkemizdeki bilirkişilik sisteminde, her ne kadar resmi bilirkişi kurumlarının denetlenmesi ile ilgili yasal düzenlemeler bulunsa da özel bilirkişilerin verdiği kararları denetleyen bir mekanizma bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmada da tespit edildiği gibi adli sürecin tarafsız ve bağımsız ilerleyebilmesi adına özel bilirkişilik hizmeti verecek olan kurum ve kişiler için ayrıntılı yasal düzenlemelerin yapılması, mesleki eğitimlerin düzenlenmesi, düzenlenen raporlar açısından etik bilirkişilik kurullarının oluşturulması gibi atılacak adımlarla bilirkişilik sisteminin sağlıklı bir şekilde ilerlemesi sağlanacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şimşeker, Ö. F., Büyük, Y., Beşkoç, C. (2021). Comparison of decisions of Third Supreme Council of The Council of Forensic Medicine and other expert reports in allegation of medical malpractice cases. Adli Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 3, 162–175. https://ajindex.com/articles/1352531

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. World Medical Association Statement on Medical Malpractice – WMA – The World Medical Association. Available from: https:// www.wma.net/policies-post/world-medical-association-state- ment-on-medical-malpractice/. cited 2021 Jan 21.
  2. Bilge Y, Geçim E. Medicolegal Platform For Malpractice [in Turkish]. Ankara: Ofset Digital, 2012: p.28-9.
  3. Yorulmaz AC, Kır Z, Ketenci H. Legal and Criminal Respon- sibility of Physicians, Medical Malpractice and Regulation of Forensic Reports in the Framework of New Laws [in Turkish]. Istanbul: Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine Continuing Medical Education Activities Symposium Series 48,: p.55-9.
  4. Akil C. The substantially differentiation of the court expert and expert witness in civil procedure [in Turkish]. Ankara Barosu Derg. 2011; 2:171–83.
  5. Li H, Dong S, Liao S, Yao Y, Yuan S, Cui Y, Li G. Retrospective analysis of medical malpractice claims in tertiary hospitals of china: The view from patient safety. BMJ Open. 2020;10 9:1-11.
  6. National Practitioner Data Bank 2012 Annual Report. Available from: https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/resources/2012annualReport/ executiveSummary.jsp. cited 2021 Mar 22.
  7. Özkaya N, Yılmaz R, Özkaya H, Can M, Pakiş I, Yıldırım A, Elmas İ. Evaluation of cases aged 0-18 years referred to the Council of Forensic Medicine with the claim of medical malpractice. Turk Arch Ped 2011;46:144-50.
  8. Wang F, Krishnan SK. Medical malpractice claims within car- diology from 2006 to 2015. Am J Cardiol. 2019 Jan 1;123 1:164-168.
  9. Güven Gül T. Evaluation of cases examined with allegations of medical practice error in the field of child health and diseases in The Council of Forensic Medicine Unpublished Thesis [in Turk- ish]. The Council of Forensic Medicine, Istanbul, 2021.
  10. Polat O, Güven T. Comparison of expertise practices in Brit- ish, American and Turkish law [in Turkish]. 2015; 0 119:97-114.
  11. Güzel S, Yavuz MS, Aşırdizer M. The evaluation of malpraxis cases which had been negotiated by the General Assemıbly of the Council of Forensic Medicine GACFM for the contradictory opinions between the Specialty Commitee SC of Council of Fo- rensic Medicine CFM and Supreme Commitee on Health SCH in Turkish]. The Bulletin of Legal Medicine. 2002;7:14-20.
  12. Yazıcı YA, Şen H, Aliustaoğlu S, Sezer Y, İnce CH. Evaluation of the medical malpractice cases concluded in the General Assem- bly of Council of Forensic Medicine. Turkish J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;21 3:204–8.
  13. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, Puopolo AL, Brennan TA. Claims, errors, and compensa- tion payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med.;354 19:2024–33.
  14. Casali MB, Mobilia F, Sordo S Del, Blandino A, Genovese U. The medical malpractice in Milan-Italy. A retrospective survey on years of judicial autopsies. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;242:38–43.
  15. Kırtışoğlu M. Evaluation of The Medical Malpractice Cases Concluded in Supreme Court of Appeals Between 2010-2017 Unpublished Thesis [in Turkish]. Forensic Medicine Depart- ment of Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, 2018.
  16. Pakiş I. The role of legal autopsy in the investigation of still- birth and death cases due to medical malpractice Unpublished Thesis [in Turkish]. Forensic Medicine Department of Marmara University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, 2006.
  17. Karpuz H. Medical malpractice cases related to cardiovascu- lar disaeses Unpublished Thesis [in Turkish]. İstanbul Univer- sity, Institute of Forensic Sciences and Legal Medicine, Istanbul, 2015.
  18. Yıldız MF. Evaluation of cases with claims of medical mal- practice in the field of ophthalmology, whose opinion was given by The Council of Forensic Medicine Unpublished Thesis [in Turkish]. The Council of Forensic Medicine, Istanbul, 2021.
  19. Saber Tehrani AS, Lee H, Mathews SC, Shore A, Makary MA, Pronovost PJ, Newman-Toker DE. 25-year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986–2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Aug 1;22 8:672–80.
  20. World Medical Association Statement on Medical Malpractice – WMA – The World Medical Association. Available from: https:// www.wma.net/policies-post/world-medical-association-state- ment-on-medical-malpractice/. cited 2021 Jan 21.
  21. Yorulmaz AC, Kır Z, Ketenci H. Legal and Criminal Respon- sibility of Physicians, Medical Malpractice and Regulation of Forensic Reports in the Framework of New Laws [in Turkish]. Istanbul: Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine Continuing Medical Education Activities Symposium Series 48,: p.55-9.
  22. Akil C. The substantially differentiation of the court expert and expert witness in civil procedure [in Turkish]. Ankara Barosu Derg. 2011; 2:171–83.
  23. Li H, Dong S, Liao S, Yao Y, Yuan S, Cui Y, Li G. Retrospective analysis of medical malpractice claims in tertiary hospitals of china: The view from patient safety. BMJ Open. 2020;10 9:1-11.
  24. National Practitioner Data Bank 2012 Annual Report. Available from: https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/resources/2012annualReport/ executiveSummary.jsp. cited 2021 Mar 22.
  25. Wang F, Krishnan SK. Medical malpractice claims within car- diology from 2006 to 2015. Am J Cardiol. 2019 Jan 1;123 1:164-168.
  26. Polat O, Güven T. Comparison of expertise practices in Brit- ish, American and Turkish law [in Turkish]. 2015; 0 119:97-114.
  27. Yazıcı YA, Şen H, Aliustaoğlu S, Sezer Y, İnce CH. Evaluation of the medical malpractice cases concluded in the General Assem- bly of Council of Forensic Medicine. Turkish J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;21 3:204–8.
  28. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, Puopolo AL, Brennan TA. Claims, errors, and compensa- tion payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med.;354 19:2024–33.
  29. Saber Tehrani AS, Lee H, Mathews SC, Shore A, Makary MA, Pronovost PJ, Newman-Toker DE. 25-year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986–2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Aug 1;22 8:672–80.