Search

The purpose of this work is to provide an understanding of the medicolegal landscape with regards to ambulatory surgery centers and physician owned hospitals, trends in our healthcare system, the benefits of facility ownership for both outpatient and inpatient spine surgery, and the effect of each on physicians and patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure E.A. Potts- Consultant and royalties, Medtronic; SeeAll AI ownership; North Meridian Surgery Center ownership; Indiana Spine Hospital ownership. M.J. Visconti-none. V.J. Alentado-none., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2020, realizing that a President was not immune to a public health emergency, United States Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recommended the passing of a Bill (Raskin J (2021) A Bill To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and for other purposes. 116th Congress, 2nd Session. https://raskin.house.gov/sites/raskin.house.gov/files/Commission%20on%20Presidential%20Capacity%20Act%20%5BFINAL%5Dpdf.pdf ) that would create a bipartisan group of experts to evaluate the Commander-in-Chief's mental and physical health and advise Congress on whether a President could be demoted under the 25th Amendment. Neurosurgeons are equipped to advice Congress in the advent of such a need. The authors aimed to provide a brief history of the 25th amendment during US history and implications for neurosurgeons within the jurisdictions of US Congress., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Neurosurgery has 1 of the highest risks for medical malpractice claims. We reviewed the factors associated with neurosurgical malpractice claims and litigation in the United States and reported the outcomes through a systematic review of the literature., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We sought to identify pertinent studies containing information about medical malpractice claims and outcomes involving neurosurgeons in the United States., Results: We identified 15 retrospective studies spanning from 2002 to 2023 that reviewed over 7890 malpractice claims involving practicing neurosurgeons in the United States. Disparities were evident in neurosurgical litigation, with 474 cases linked to brain-related surgeries and a larger proportion, 1926 cases, tied to spine surgeries. The most commonly filed claims were intraprocedural errors (37.4%), delayed diagnoses (32.1%), and failure to treat (28.8%). Less frequently filed claims included misdiagnosis or choice of incorrect procedure (18.4%), occurrence of death (17.3%), test misinterpretation (14.4%), failure to appropriately refer patients for evaluation/treatment (14.3%), unnecessary surgical procedures (13.3%), and lack of informed consent (8.3%). The defendant was favored in 44.3% of claims, while in 31.3% of lawsuits were dropped, 17.7% of verdicts favored the plaintiff, and 16.6% reached an out of court settlement. Only 3.5% of lawsuits found both parties liable., Conclusion: Neurosurgery is a high-risk specialty with 1 of the highest rates of malpractice claims. Spine claims had a significantly higher rate of filed malpractice claims, while cranial malpractice claims were associated with higher litigation compensation. Predictably, spinal cord injuries play a crucial role in predicting litigation. Importantly, nonsurgical treatments are also a common source of liability in neurosurgical practice., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

One of the challenges of AI technologies is its "black box" nature, or the lack of explainability and interpretability of these technologies. This chapter explores whether AI systems in healthcare generally, and in neurosurgery specifically, should be explainable, for what purposes, and whether the current XAI ("explainable AI") approaches and techniques are able to achieve these purposes. The chapter concludes that XAI techniques, at least currently, are not the only and not necessarily the best way to achieve trust in AI and ensure patient autonomy or improved clinical decision, and they are of limited significance in determining liability. Instead, we argue, we need more transparency around AI systems, their training and validation, as this information is likely to better achieve these goals., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Despite the rising trend of medicolegal challenges in Italy, there is a significant lack of literature on this topic. To provide better understanding of awareness toward medicolegal aspects, defensive behavior, consent-taking practice, and general perceptions of Italian neurosurgeons on this issue, a cross-sectional survey was conducted., Methods: A questionnaire covering various aspects of medicolegal issues, in an anonymous online form, was sent to neurosurgeons practicing in Italy via e-mail-through a national mailing list-and social media platforms. The data collection period was November 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020., Results: A total of 64 single responses were included. We assessed 1) awareness of Italian neurosurgeons about a legal framework: a low level of knowledge has been reported-87.5% were unaware of the terms and conditions outlined by the contract with the institution, 75.6% of respondents stated they didn't know the main body of law that governed the medical community; and 2) perception toward defensive medicine: 92.2% believed that they were not trained to face possible medicolegal issues, but only a few tried to acquire more knowledge about medical legal issues, such as learning how to obtain a proper informed consent for a surgical procedure (34.4%)., Conclusions: This study marks the first survey to identify the perceptions among Italian neurosurgeons of medical legal issues and related "defensive medicine" practices: This is of relevance given its exorbitant cost in terms of public expenditure, psychologic burden, and its relevant impact on health care delivery., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Neurosurgery is considered to have one of the greatest risks of medical malpractice claims. However, medicolegal issues in neurosurgery are often disregarded and underrated worldwide. Medical errors in the neurosurgical field can be attributed to multiple factors, including highly morbid pathologies, the technical difficulty of neurosurgical procedures, and the involvement and interaction of a multidisciplinary team in the care of neurosurgical patients. Health care providers worldwide are at risk of lawsuits, sometimes even when no deviation from the standard of care had occurred in a given case. Often, governments use additional tactics to decrease the burden on compensators and extrajudicial institutions and to decrease the court's flow of irrational litigation. Continuous amendments to health care acts and newer reforms to address these issues have materialized worldwide. In the present narrative review, we have reviewed the global perspectives of medicolegal issues, with a focus on neurosurgical discipline., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Medical malpractice litigation is something that every neurosurgeon encounters in his or her career and causes significant strife to amateur physicians attempting to navigate the medicolegal process. Neurosurgery in particular is one of the highest risk specialties for litigation. This calls to order the importance of a clear understanding of the medicolegal proceedings that may follow after a complaint has been filed. This report describes the steps to be taken by the physician in the instance that litigation is expected or considered a possibility. We describe the elements that comprise a medical malpractice claim, details of the lawsuit process including hospital peer review and expert witness selection, and how to communicate appropriately with the patients and their families in an empathetic way. It is imperative to gain an appropriate understanding of the entirety of the malpractice claim process to ease the anxiety of litigation for the physician and decrease the amount of avoidable complications., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Annual conferences, educational courses, and other meetings draw a diverse community of individuals, yet also create a unique environment without the traditional guard rails. Unlike events held at one's home institution, clear rules and jurisdiction have not been universally established. To promote the open exchange of ideas, as well as an environment conducive to professional growth of all participants, the leading neurosurgical professional organizations joined forces to delineate the expectations for anyone who participates in sponsored events. The One Neurosurgery Summit Taskforce on Professionalism and Harassment developed a foundational policy that establishes common expectations for behavior and a unified roadmap for the prompt response to untoward events. We hope that publishing this policy will inspire other medical organizations to establish their own meeting and conference policies. More importantly, we wish to bring greater attention to everyone's responsibility for ensuring a safe and respectful space for education, scientific debate, and networking during organized events., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Congress of Neurological Surgeons.)

Introduction: Statutory duty of candour was introduced in November 2014 for NHS bodies in England. Contained within the regulation were definitions regarding the threshold for what constitutes a notifiable patient safety incident. However, it can be difficult to determine when the process should be implemented. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the interpretation of these definitions by British neurosurgeons., Materials and Methods: All full (consultant) members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons were electronically invited to participate in an online survey. Surgeons were presented with 15 cases and asked to decide in the case of each one whether they would trigger the process of duty of candour. Cases were stratified according to their likelihood and severity., Results: In all, 106/357 (29.7%) members participated in the survey. Responses varied widely, with almost no members triggering the process of duty of candour in cases where adverse events were common (greater than 10% likelihood) and required only outpatient follow-up (7/106; 6.6%), and almost all members doing so in cases where adverse events were rare (less than 0.1% likelihood) and resulted in death (102/106; 96.2%). However, there was clear equipoise in triggering the process of duty of candour in cases where adverse events were uncommon (0.1-10% likelihood) and resulted in moderate harm (38/106; 35.8%), severe harm (57/106; 53.8%) or death (49/106; 46.2%)., Conclusion: There is considerable nationwide variation in the interpretation of definitions regarding the threshold for duty of candour. To this end, we propose a framework for the improved application of duty of candour in clinical practice.

For the past several decades, medical malpractice claims in the state of Louisiana have been screened by a pretrial medical review panel (MRP). Composed of 3 physicians and 1 attorney, these panels are a method of filtering nonmeritorious lawsuits while expediting creditable claims. Currently, 14 jurisdictions in the United States require medical liability/malpractice cases be heard by an MRP or screening panel prior to trial. In this article, we review the MRP process in Louisiana and compare it to those in other states. Data are presented for the past 10 yr of malpractice claims in Louisiana with an emphasis on the neurosurgery specialty. Finally, the benefits and challenges of pretrial screening panels are discussed., (Copyright © 2019 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.)

Background: Compared with other doctors, surgeons are at an increased risk of medicolegal events, including patient complaints and negligence claims. This retrospective study aimed to describe the frequency and nature of complaints involving surgeons compared with physicians., Methods: We assembled a national data set of complaints about surgeons and physicians lodged with medical regulators in Australia from 2011 to 2016. We classified the complaints into 19 issues across four domains: treatment and procedures, other performance, professional conduct and health. We assessed differences in complaint risk using incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Finally, we used a multivariate model to identify predictors of complaints among surgeons., Results: The rate of complaints was 2.3 times higher for surgeons than physicians (112 compared with 48 complaints per 1000 practice years, P < 0.001). Two-fifths (41%) of the higher rate of complaints among surgeons was attributable to issues other than treatments and procedures, including fees (IRR = 2.68), substance use (IRR = 2.10), communication (IRR = 1.98) and interpersonal behaviour (IRR = 1.92). Male surgeons were at a higher risk of complaints, as were specialists in orthopaedics, plastic surgery and neurosurgery., Discussion: Surgeons are more than twice as likely to attract complaints as their physician peers. This elevated risk arises partly from involvement in surgical procedures and treatments, but also reflects wider concerns about interpersonal skills, professional ethics and substance use. Improved understanding of these patterns may assist efforts to reduce harm and support safe practise., (© 2017 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Background: Of all specialists, neurosurgeons have the highest probability of facing a medical malpractice claim. Here we report the first specialty-wide review of malpractice claims in neurosurgery performed using a well-established national online legal database., Methods: The Westlaw legal research service (Thomson Reuters, Eagan, Minnesota, USA) was queried for jury verdicts and settlements related to neurosurgery and medical malpractice between 1985 and 2015. Case files were examined, and factors recorded included the age and sex of the patient, the state and year in which the verdict was reached, defendant specialties, award payouts, and alleged reasons for malpractice. Case files were sorted into neurosurgical subspecialties based on the nature of the condition and the type of treatment administered., Results: A total of 516 cases were identified, and 343 cases were analyzed. A defendant's verdict was reached in 165 (48.1%) cases, and a plaintiff's verdict was reached in 93 (27.1%) cases. A settlement was reached in 81 cases (23.6%). The median payout for plaintiff's verdicts was $2,550,000 (range, $80,000-$216,849,187), and that for settlements was $1,300,000 (range, $100,000-$13,300,000). Procedural error (45.5%), a failure to diagnose (41.4%), or a failure to treat (42.9%) were the most commonly cited reasons for litigation. Neurosurgeons accounted for 21.1% of defendants. The median plaintiff award payout was highest for pediatric cases ($10,100,000)., Conclusions: A defendant's verdict was reached in nearly one-half of the cases. In instances where a plaintiff's verdict was reached, large payouts were common, especially in pediatric and cerebrovascular cases. An emphasis on reducing procedural error, and making timely differential diagnoses, may reduce future litigation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Co-management arrangements can be a very effective means of aligning physicians and their hospitals to gain care delivery efficiencies, control costs, and reduce variation in practices. In an era of value-based care delivery all aspects must be examined and the appropriate incentives put in place to reduce waste and optimize asset and resource utilization. This article will review legal considerations, define basic co-management structure and goals, and suggest examples of metrics used to achieve success.

The legislative branch of government took many by surprise when it announced the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. Once the Act was passed, President Obama quickly signed this bipartisan, bicameral effort into law. A foundational element of this legislation was the permanent repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula. Physicians and their patients were appropriately enthusiastic about this development. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 included additional elements of considerable interest to neurointerventional specialists., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Telemedicine has seen substantial growth in the past 20 years, related to technologic advancements and evolving reimbursement policies. The risks and opportunities of neurosurgical telemedicine are nuanced., Methods: We reviewed general and peer-reviewed literature as it relates to telemedicine and neurosurgery, with particular attention to best practices, relevant state and federal policy conditions, economic evaluations, and prospective clinical studies., Results: Despite technologic development, growing interest, and increasing reimbursement opportunities, telemedicine's utilization remains limited because of concerns regarding an apparent lack of need for telemedicine services, lack of widespread reimbursement, lack of interstate licensure reciprocity, lack of universal access to necessary technology, concerns about maintaining patient confidentiality, and concerns and limited precedent regarding liability issues. The Veterans Health Administration, a component of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, represents a setting in which these concerns can be largely obviated and is a model for telemedicine best practices. Results from the VA demonstrate substantial cost savings and patient satisfaction with remote care for chronic neurologic conditions. Overall, the economic and clinical benefits of telemedicine will likely come from 1) diminished travel times and lost work time for patients; 2) remote consultation of subspecialty experts, such as neurosurgeons; and 3) remote consultation to assist with triage and care in time-sensitive scenarios, including acute stroke care and "teletrauma.", Conclusions: Telemedicine is effective in many health care scenarios and will become more relevant to neurosurgical patient care. We favor proceeding with legislation to reduce barriers to telemedicine's growth., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECT While malpractice litigation has had many negative impacts on health care delivery systems, information extracted from lawsuits could potentially guide toward venues to improve care. The authors present a comprehensive review of lawsuits within a tertiary academic neurosurgical department and report institutional and departmental strategies to mitigate liability by integrating risk management data with quality improvement initiatives. METHODS The Comprehensive Risk Intelligence Tool database was interrogated to extract claims/suits abstracts concerning neurosurgical cases that were closed from January 2008 to December 2012. Variables included demographics of the claimant, type of procedure performed (if any), claim description, insured information, case outcome, clinical summary, contributing factors and subfactors, amount incurred for indemnity and expenses, and independent expert opinion in regard to whether the standard of care was met. RESULTS During the study period, the Department of Neurosurgery received the most lawsuits of all surgical specialties (30 of 172), leading to a total incurred payment of $4,949,867. Of these lawsuits, 21 involved spinal pathologies and 9 cranial pathologies. The largest group of suits was from patients with challenging medical conditions who underwent uneventful surgeries and postoperative courses but filed lawsuits when they did not see the benefits for which they were hoping; 85% of these claims were withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The most commonly cited contributing factors included clinical judgment (20 of 30), technical skill (19 of 30), and communication (6 of 30). CONCLUSIONS While all medical and surgical subspecialties must deal with the issue of malpractice and liability, neurosurgery is most affected both in terms of the number of suits filed as well as monetary amounts awarded. To use the suits as learning tools for the faculty and residents and minimize the associated costs, quality initiatives addressing the most frequent contributing factors should be instituted in care redesign strategies, enabling strategic alignment of quality improvement and risk management efforts.

Object: The potential imbalance between malpractice liability cost and quality of care has been an issue of debate. We investigated the association of malpractice liability with unfavorable outcomes and increased hospitalization charges in cranial neurosurgery., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent cranial neurosurgical procedures from 2005-2010, and were registered in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. We used data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) from 2005 to 2010 to create measures of volume and size of malpractice claim payments. The association of the latter with the state-level mortality, length of stay (LOS), unfavorable discharge, and hospitalization charges for cranial neurosurgery was investigated., Results: During the study period, there were 189,103 patients (mean age 46.4 years, with 48.3% females) who underwent cranial neurosurgical procedures, and were registered in NIS. In a multivariable regression, higher number of claims per physician in a state was associated with increased ln-transformed hospitalization charges (beta 0.18; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.19). On the contrary, there was no association with mortality (OR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.06). We observed a small association with unfavorable discharge (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.13), and LOS (beta 0.01; 95% CI, 0.002 to 0.03). The size of the awarded claims demonstrated similar relationships. The average claims payment size (ln-transformed) (Pearson's rho=0.435, P=0.01) demonstrated a positive correlation with the risk-adjusted hospitalization charges but did not demonstrate a correlation with mortality, unfavorable discharge, or LOS., Conclusions: In the present national study, aggressive malpractice environment was not correlated with mortality but was associated with higher hospitalization charges after cranial neurosurgery. In view of the association of malpractice with the economics of healthcare, further research on its impact is necessary.

Introduction: Neurosurgery remains amongst the highest malpractice risk specialties. We aimed to better understand the medicolegal burden in neurosurgery by analysing a large volume of claims recorded by the National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA)., Methods: The NHSLA database was retrospectively interrogated for all closed (i.e. with legal outcomes) claims in neurosurgery recorded between 1997 and 2011. Collected data included clinical event; subspecialty; patient injury sustained; reason for claim; legal outcome and litigation costs., Results: The total neurosurgical litigation cost associated with 617 closed claims over the time period investigated was £67.4 million. 282 claims (46%) were successful with damages awarded. The annual claim volume and damages paid increased between 2002 and 2011 by 50% and 140%, respectively, and two-thirds of these increases were attributable to spinal claims. 30% of the total litigation cost was legal fees. The leading causes of damages paid in cranial surgery were delayed diagnosis (29%) and delayed treatment (24%). In contrast, the leading causes of damages paid in spinal surgery were delayed diagnosis (32%) and surgical negligence (22%). The greatest mean damages awarded per claim were for brain damage (£617,000), compared to only £51,000 for fatality., Conclusion: Neurosurgical litigation in NHS hospitals has significantly increased over the last decade, predominantly due to spinal claims. A neurosurgical claim has a very high likelihood of success, and even for unsuccessful claims, associated legal fees are considerable. Causes of claims are differently distributed between cranial and spinal neurosurgery, although overall, delay to diagnosis accounted for the predominant share of claims volume and damages. There was a significant medicolegal burden associated with serious long-term injury and need for life-long care as in the case of brain damage as compared with death as an outcome. This analysis represents the largest U.K. study on litigation in surgery to date.

Background: Neurosurgeons have the highest exposure to litigation of all medical and surgical specialties., Objective: To determine the relative risk of claims for compensation and indemnity by procedure type. The most common alleged factors and clinical outcomes are also determined., Methods: The Physician Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Project was queried for all claims involving a neurosurgeon with an incident date during the calendar year 2006. Data were compared with the American Association of Neurological Surgeons National Neurosurgical Procedural Statistics 2006 Survey. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ test and Fisher exact test as appropriate., Results: Claims were most common after spine surgery, followed by medical management and cranial surgery. Compared with spine surgery, cranial surgery was significantly less likely to result in a claim (P < .0001, relative risk: 0.45). However, the average indemnity for spine surgery was $278,362 vs $423,539 for medical management and $438,183 for cranial surgery. The most common alleged factors in spine surgery were improper performance, wrong level operated on, and unindicated procedure. The most common alleged factors in medical management were errors in diagnosis and failure to monitor a patient. The most common alleged factors in cranial surgery were errors in diagnosis and improper performance. For all claims, the most common clinical outcomes were paraplegia, infection, other unspecified complications, and cauda equina syndrome., Conclusion: Claims are statistically less likely to occur after cranial surgery. However, indemnity is higher in cranial and medical management cases than in spine surgery cases. Nonsurgical treatment is a common source of liability in neurosurgical practice.

Background: The term "Defensive" medicine was coined in the early 1970's and has been an important topic of scientific investigation and professional debate ever since., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of defensive medicine, its reasons, and the extent to which it is practiced in the Turkish health care system. This is the first national survey to study the practice of defensive medicine among neurosurgeons in Turkey., Methods: The present cross-sectional study on defensive medicine assessed neurosurgeons registered at the Turkish Neurosurgical Society, who are actively working in various centers and hospitals within the Turkish health care system. A 40-question survey was adapted from existing measures described in the literature and was completed by a total of 404 neurosurgeons, representing 36.7% of the neurosurgeons registered at the Turkish Neurosurgical Society., Results: Seventy-two percent of the participants in the current study reported practicing defensive medicine. This practice was mainly reported among inexperienced neurosurgeons (74.4%). Most were younger than 40 years of age (75.2%), working in state hospitals/universities (72.7%), and living in the Marmara region (38%). Respondents reported engaging in defensive medicine by avoiding high-risk surgery (62.6%), ordering additional imaging studies (60.9%) and laboratory tests (33.7%), and referring patients to consultants (31.2%). Most participants consider every patient as a potential threat in terms of a medical lawsuit (68.3%) and do not believe the courts can distinguish malpractice from complications (89.6%)., Conclusion: Concerns and perceptions about medical liability lead neurosurgeons to practice defensive medicine. By avoiding high-risk surgery, ordering unnecessary diagnostic tests, and referring the patients to consultants, neurosurgeons try to minimize the risk of malpractice and protect themselves from legal risks, resulting in higher healthcare expenditure and longer treatment periods.

Object: The effects of sleep deprivation on performance have been well documented and have led to changes in duty hour regulation. New York State implemented stricter duty hours in 1989 after sleep deprivation among residents was thought to have contributed to a patient's death. The goal of this study was to determine if increased regulation of resident duty hours results in measurable changes in patient outcomes., Methods: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures at hospitals with neurosurgery training programs were identified and screened for in-hospital complications, in-hospital procedures, discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality. Comparisons in the above outcomes were made between New York hospitals and non-New York hospitals before and after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) regulations were put into effect in 2003., Results: Analysis of discharge disposition demonstrated that 81.9% of patients in the New York group 2000-2002 were discharged to home compared with 84.1% in the non-New York group 2000-2002 (p = 0.6, adjusted multivariate analysis). In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ (p = 0.7). After the regulations were implemented, there was a nonsignificant decrease in patients discharged to home in the non-New York group: 84.1% of patients in the 2000-2002 group compared with 81.5% in the 2004-2006 group (p = 0.6). In-hospital mortality did not significantly change (p = 0.9). In New York there was no significant change in patient outcomes with the implementation of the regulations; 81.9% of patients in the 2000-2002 group were discharged to home compared with 78.0% in the 2004-2006 group (p = 0.3). In-hospital mortality did not significantly change (p = 0.4). After the regulations were in place, analysis of discharge disposition demonstrated that 81.5% of patients in the non-New York group 2004-2006 were discharged to home compared with 78.0% in the New York group 2004-2006 (p = 0.01). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different (p = 0.3)., Conclusions: Regulation of resident duty hours has not resulted in significant changes in outcomes among neurosurgical patients.

This article discusses the principles of the law in relation to legal causation as applied to neurosurgical practice. Causation is a causal link between a breach of duty of care and the final harm. The fundamental "but-for" test for causation will be discussed, together with Chester v Afshar modified causation, prospective and retrospective probabilities of harm, loss of a chance, causation following breach of duty of care by omission, breaking the chain of causation, material contribution and the law in relation to multiple defendants, with neurosurgical examples.

A working knowledge of the legal principles of medical negligence is helpful to neurosurgeons. It helps them to act in a "reasonable, responsible and logical" manner, that is a practice that is consistent with the surgical practice of their peers. This article will review and explain the relevant medical law in relation to duty of care with illustrative neurosurgical cases.

Objective: Since the mid-1950s, neurosurgery has benefited from the remarkable progress due to tremendous advances in neuroimaging techniques, neuroanesthesia, neurostimulation, and brain-computer interfaces, as well as breakthroughs in operating microscopes and surgical instruments. Yet, this specialty has to do with delicate human structures and is hence considered as highly risky by insurance companies. In France, although neurosurgery's casualty rate (6%) is lower than in other specialties, the number of legal prosecutions has increased since 2002 because of easier access to medicolegal procedures. In order to avoid patients' resorting to the law courts, it becomes necessary to clearly identify the risk factors., Methods: From the data bank of the insurer Société Hospitalière d'Assurances Mutuelles (SHAM, main insurance company for public hospitals in France), we retrospectively analyzed 115 files (34 cranial and 81 spinal surgeries) covering the period 1997-2007 for the reasons for complaints against French neurosurgeons working in public hospitals., Results: Five main causes were identified: surgical site infection (37%), technical error (22%), lack of information (14%), delayed diagnosis (11%), and lack of supervision (9%)., Conclusion: Some causes are definitely avoidable at no cost to the hospital. Besides basic preventive safety procedures, we reiterate the mandatory steps for a good defense when being prosecuted. The evolution of patients' attitudes toward medical institutions observed in most countries has forced surgeons to adapt their practice. In this context, a common action certified by learned societies on sustainable health care quality, patient safety, and respect of good practices appears as the golden path to maintain a favorable legal, insurance, and financial environment., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We report the results from a survey of the British Neurosurgical Trainees' Association which aimed to assess current rota patterns and their compliance with the government's working time regulations. The survey questioned whether trainees felt that shift working, imposed as a result of the European working time directive, is continuing to impact on patient care and training opportunities in neurosurgery. The responses to this survey indicate that neurosurgical trainees remain concerned with the impact that the current working time regulations have on all facets of their work: training, work- life balance, and the provision of patient care. The survey comments show that the majority would support a change in legislation to allow greater flexibility in the working time regulations.

The predominance in performing surgery of major spine injuries by neurosurgeons usually has the consequence of treating all types of spine injuries by neurosurgeons - neurotraumatologists. In the neurosurgical wards of Clinical Hospital Rijeka, we take care of the majority of these patients, following both the major, as well as minor--whiplash injuries of the neck. This article is an overview of the patients admitted in the one year period (October 1st 2009-October 1st 2010) where 1077 cases of neck injuries were analyzed. Vast majority of these injuries were due to traffic accidents (over 94%), and only a small proportion were serious injuries that needed a surgical approach--decompression and stabilization (c1%). We analyzed minor neck injuries thoroughly both because of the increasing number of whiplash neck injuries and because more complicated diagnostic and therapeutic protocols occupy too much time in the ambulatory practice of our neurotraumatologists each year thus representing a growing financial burden to the health organizations and to the society as a whole. Our results proved that the majority of the injured are male (over 60%), young and active (almost two thirds 21-40 years of age), had commonly sustained a Quebec Task Force (QTF) injury of grades 2 and 3 (almost 90%), and, if properly treated, recovered completely after a mean therapy period of ten weeks. Only a minority complained of prolonged residual symptoms, some of them connected with medico-legal issues (less than 20%). The results shown are in contrast with the general opinion that malingerers in search of financial compensation prevail in these cases, and leads to the conclusion that minor neck injuries (including whiplash) as well as Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD) are real traumatological entities, that have to be seriously dealt with.

This Statement of Ethics in Neurosurgery was developed by the Committee for Ethics and Medico-Legal Affairs of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies to help neurosurgeons resolve problems in the treatment of individual patients and meet obligations to the larger society. This document is intended as a framework rather than a set of rules. It cannot cover every situation and should be used with flexibility. However, it is our intent that the fundamental principles enunciated here should serve as a guide in the day-to-day practice of neurosurgery., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To objectively compare the complexity and diversity of the certification process in Neurological Surgery in European member societies of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies., Materials and Methods: The attention of this study centers on Europe. We provide here a subgroup analysis based on the responses provided to a 13-item survey. The data received were analyzed and three regional complexity scores (RCS) were designed. To compare national board experience as well as eligibility requirements to access the certification process and obligatory nature of the examinations, a RCS Organizational score was created (RCS-O, 20 points maximum). To analyze the complexity of the examination a RCS Components score was designed (RCS-C, 20 points maximum). The sum of both is presented in a Global RCS score (RCS-G). In addition, a descriptive summary of the certification process per responding society is also provided., Results and Conclusions: Based on the data provided by our RCS system, the highest RCS-G was obtained by the United Kingdom (19/40 points) followed by European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, Poland, and Sweden (16/40 points each), Portugal (15/40 points), and Switzerland (14/40 points). The experience from these leading countries should be of value to all countries of the European Union., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: With the aim of identifying the factors related to sentences against neurosurgeons, we have analyzed all the sentences issued in the second court of justice in Spain against neurosurgeons in the period from 1995 to 2007., Material and Methods: Of a total of 1899 sentences of the second or last appeal, during the period from 1995 to 2007 issued in Spain, 61 were chosen which fulfill the criteria to be included in our study. 25 variables were included on the record of compiled data. A complete descriptive and comparative study was elaborated, as well as an analysis of the type of suits, circumstances, and professionals involved., Results: In a third of the cases, complete malpraxis was identified. In regards to the sentences, they were absolved in approximately half the cases, resolved with one fifth of the cases being penal, and four fifths with compensation. Indemnity quantities range from 60,000 to 600,000euro. Deficiency of information or consent was noted in 17% of lawsuits. 62.5% of operations in our sample were on the anatomic region of the vertebral column followed in frequency by the cranial region with 28.6%. Consequences of surgical procedure included major permanent sequelae in 40% of the cases and death in 22%., Conclusions: It is wise to invest time to deal with patients, including the verbal informed consent, which must be confirmed by the written informed consent form. It is also important to leave a written proof of medical praxis, both related to surgical records and to diagnosis and follow-up of the patient. Procedures with a lower life-threatening risk should not be underestimated, since they comprise the greatest demanded group. The greatest amount of demands is related to economic reimbursement, especially in private practice.