Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:58:40.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medicolegal aspects of rhinology practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2016

N Apaydin ,
S Çomoğlu ,
Y Özer ,
H Avci ,
H Eş  and
K S Orhan
N Apaydin
Affiliation:
Institution of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Istanbul, Turkey
S Çomoğlu*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey
Y Özer
Affiliation:
Institution of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Istanbul, Turkey
H Avci
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey
H Eş
Affiliation:
Institution of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, Istanbul, Turkey
K S Orhan
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Senol Çomoğlu, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Fatih/Istanbul 34093, Turkey E-mail: drcomoglu@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate rhinology-related malpractice claims with the aim of optimising safe practice.

Methods:

The database of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine was reviewed. In total, 241 otorhinolaryngology malpractice case reports dating from 2005 to 2012 were evaluated, and 83 malpractice cases related to rhinology treatments were separated.

Results:

There was no significant difference between the number of male (n = 42) and female (n = 41) claimants. The mean patient age was 32.07 ± 10.53 years (range, 10–75 years). Seventy-nine cases involved surgical treatment in rhinology. The most common complaints were: unsatisfactory cosmetic results (n = 30), optic nerve injury (n = 10), septal perforation (n = 9) and intracranial penetration (n = 4). Malpractice was detected in 21 cases (25.3 per cent). No delinquency was found in 62 cases (74.7 per cent).

Conclusion:

Physicians should be aware of legal consequences related to rhinology practice. Further study is needed on this topic, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration, to ensure best practices and to avoid litigation.

Keywords

MalpracticeNasal Surgical ProceduresLitigation
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 10 , October 2016 , pp. 897 - 901
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 World Medical Association. WMA Statement on Medical Liability Reform. In: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/l5/ [25 July 2016]Google Scholar
2 Studdert, DM, Mello, MM, Gawande, AA, Gandhi, TK, Kachalia, A, Yoon, C et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 2006;3541:2024–33Google Scholar
3 Jena, AB, Seabury, S, Lakdawalla, D, Chandra, A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med 2011;365:629–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Dawson, DE, Kraus, EM. Medical malpractice and rhinology. Am J Rhinol 2007;21:584–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Tolisano, AM, Justin, GA, Ruhl, DS, Cable, BB. Rhinology and medical malpractice: an update of the medicolegal landscape of the last ten years. Laryngoscope 2016;126:14–19 Google Scholar
6 Lynn-Macrae, AG, Lynn-Macrae, RA, Emani, J, Kern, RC, Conley, DB. Medicolegal analysis of injury during endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1492–5Google Scholar
7 Winford, TW, Wallin, JL, Clinger, JD, Graham, AM. Malpractice in treatment of sinonasal disease by otolaryngologists: a review of the past 10 years. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;152:536–40Google Scholar
8 Hong, SS, Yheulon, CG, Wirtz, ED, Sniezek, JC. Otolaryngology and medical malpractice: a review of the past decade, 2001–2011. Laryngoscope 2014;124:896–901 Google Scholar
9 Nikoghosyan-Bossen, G, Hauberg, A, Homøe, P. Systematic analysis of ear-nose-throat malpractice complaints may be beneficial for patient safety. Dan Med J 2012;59:A4422 Google Scholar
10 Lydiatt, DD, Sewell, RK. Medical malpractice and sinonasal disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:677–81Google Scholar
11 Becker, SS, Duncavage, JA. Malpractice claims in nasal and sinus surgery: a review of 15 cases. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2010;43:929–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Harris, AS, Edwards, SJ, Pope, L. Litigation in English rhinology. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:244–9Google Scholar