Medical malpractice claims in Hepatology: Rates, Reasons, and Results

Clinicians are motivated to provide safe, high-quality care to patients with chronic liver disease. This includes the desire to avoid litigation. Data are limited regarding the actual sources of medicolegal risk in chronic liver disease.

We conducted a review of a national liability insurer (Candello) with an additional granular analysis of our institution's registry of liability claims. We included closed cases involving chronic liver disease-related encounters between 2012 and 2021. We determined rates of legal claims from a denominator of unique patients with cirrhosis or transplant care seen over the study period.

Local database: We retrieved 39 claims of which 15 involved patients with non-cirrhotic chronic liver disease, 13 involved cirrhosis (0.06% incidence), and 11 involved patients who underwent transplantation (0.6% incidence). Most claims involved periprocedural complications. Others included adverse reactions to prophylactic plasma transfusion, medication-induced HE, and falls/fractures.

We found 94 claims related to liver disease out of 102,575 (0.09%) total claims. Overall, 56% involved diagnosis-related issues (failure/delay in ordering a diagnostic test, failure to appreciate and reconcile a symptom/sign or result, or the misinterpretation of a diagnostic study). Miscommunication between providers and between providers and patients was implicated in 22% of cases. Patient behavior-related factors (nonadherence with scheduled appointments, treatments, or diagnostic testing) factored in 20% of cases. Selection or the management of therapy played a role in 7% of cases. Very rarely were cases associated with technical skill (4%), house staff supervision (3%), or weekend/holiday care (1%). Fifty-one (55%) claims involved HCC.

We provide the rates and reasons for medical malpractice claims in hepatology.