Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:21:49.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Decision Aid May Offer Liability Protection for a Bad Obstetrical Outcome: Results of Mock Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Suzanne Brodney ,
Pamela H. Wescott ,
Benjamin W. Moulton ,
Katherine Hartmann ,
Yuchiao Chang  and
Michael J. Barry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate if use of a patient decision aid (PDA), when choosing between a repeat cesarean or a trial of labor after a cesarean (TOLAC), reduces medical liability exposure. The authors conclude that use of a PDA conferred liability protection when potential jurors were presented with a hypothetical malpractice claim against an obstetrician following a TOLAC.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 46 , Issue 4: Next Steps in Health Reform , Winter 2018 , pp. 967 - 974
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2018

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

Gregory, K.D., Fridman, M., and Korst, L., “Trends and Patterns of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Availability in the United States,” Seminars in Perinatology 34, no. 4 (2010): 237–243.Google Scholar
Gupta, J.K., Smith, G.C.S., and Chodankar, R.R., “Birth After Previous Cesarean Birth,” Green-top Guideline, London: Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, 2015. Report No. 45; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 115, “Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 116 no. 2 Pt 1 (2010): 450-463.Google Scholar
Cox, K.J., “Providers’ Perspectives on the Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Guidelines in Florida, United States: A Qualitative Study,” BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 11, no. 72 (2011): 1–12; Barger, M.K., Dunn, J.T., Bearman, S., DeLain, M., and Gates, E. “A Survey of Access to Trial of Labor in California Hospitals in 2012,” BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 13, no. 83 (2013): 2-10.Google Scholar
Korst, L.M., Gregory, K.D., Fridman, M., and Phelan, J.P. “Nonclinical Factors Affecting Women's Access to Trial of Labor after Cesarean Delivery,” Clinics in Perinatology 38, no. 2 (2011):193–216; Leeman, L.M., Beagle, M., Espey, E., Ogburn, T., and Skipper, B. “Diminishing Availability of Trial of Labor After Cesarean Delivery in New Mexico Hospitals,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 122 no. 2 Pt 1 (2013): 242-247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y.T., Mello, M.M., Subramanian, S.V., and Studdert, D.M., “Relationship Between Malpractice Litigation Pressure and Rates of Cesarean Section and Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section,” Medical Care 47, no. 2 (2009): 234–242.Google Scholar
Mulley, A.G., Trimble, C., and Elwyn, G. “Stop the Silent Mis-diagnosis: Patients’ Preferences Matter,” BMJ 345 (2012): e6572.Google Scholar
Stacey, D., Legare, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M.J., Bennett, C.L., Eden, K.B., et al., “Decision Aids for People Facing Health Treatment or Screening Decisions,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4 (2017): CD001431.Google Scholar
Barry, M.J., Wescott, P.H., Reifler, E.J., Chang, Y., and Moulton, B.W. “Reactions of Potential Jurors to a Hypothetical Malpractice Suit Alleging Failure to Perform a Prostate-Specific Antigen Test,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 396–402.Google Scholar
Pope, T.M. and Lessler, D., “Revolutionizing Informed Consent: Empowering Patients with Certified Decision Aids,” Patient (March 31, 2017).Google Scholar
Bourne, T., Wynants, L., Peters, M., Van Audenhove, C., Timmerman, D., Van Calster, B., et al., “The Impact of Complaints Procedures on the Welfare, Health and Clinical Practise of 7926 Doctors in the UK: A Cross-Sectional Survey,” BMJ Open 5, no. 1 (2015): e006687,2014-006687; Ortashi, O., Virdee, J., Hassan, R., Mutrynowski, T., and Abu-Zidan, F., “The Practice of Defensive Medicine among Hospital Doctors in the United Kingdom,” BMC Medical Ethics 14 (2013): 1-6; Studdert, D.M., Mello, M.M., Sage, W.M., DesRoches, C.M., Peugh, J., Zapert, K., et al., “Defensive Medicine among High-Risk Specialist Physicians in a Volatile Malpractice Environment,” JAMA 293, no. 21 (2005): 2609-2617.Google Scholar
See Cox, supra note 3; see Yang, supra note 5; Cheng, Y.W., Snowden, J.M., Handler, S.J., Tager, I.B., Hubbard, A.E., and Caughey, A.B., “Litigation in Obstetrics: Does Defensive Medicine Contribute to Increases in Cesarean Delivery?” Journal of Maternal Fetal Neonatal Medicine 27, no. 16 (2014): 1668–1675; F.A. Chervenak and L.B. McCullough, “Ethical Issues in Cesarean Delivery,” Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 43 (2017): 68-75; G. Gochnour S. Ratcliffe, and M.B. Stone, “The UTAH VBAC study,” Maternal and Child Health Journal 9, no. 2 (2005): 181-188; C.E. Wells, “Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery: Views from the Private Practitioner,” Seminars in Perinatology 34, no. 5 (2010): 345-350.Google Scholar
See Chervenak, supra note 11; Malik, M.F., Awonuga, A.O., and Iglesia, C.B., “Informed Consent for Vaginal Delivery: Is it Time to Revisit the Shared Decision-Making Process?” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 61, no. 3-4 (2016): 153–158.Google Scholar
See Stacey, supra note 7.Google Scholar
Friedman, A.M. and Srinivas, S.K., “Is Documentation of TOLAC Counseling a Good Measure of Quality of Care?” Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 29, no. 11 (2016): 1710–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaffidi, R.M., Posmontier, B., Bloch, J.R., and Wittmann-Price, R., “The Relationship Between Personal Knowledge and Decision Self-Efficacy in Choosing Trial of Labor after Cesarean,” Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 59, no. 3 (2014): 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar