Clinical Practice Guidelines in Surgical Malpractice Litigation: An Analysis of California Trial Court Orders

Background Clinical practice guideline (CPG) development is a time- and resource-intensive process, yet their uptake may be limited by concerns among clinicians that guidelines could be used against them in malpractice cases. The role of CPGs in surgical litigation remains unclear. Aim To empirically evaluate how CPGs are used in surgical civil law and determine whether cited guidelines are surgery specific. Methods A systematic review of California Civil Trial Court Orders (Westlaw) was searched for surgery-related cases from 2021-2024. Case dockets were reviewed for guideline-based recommendations in expert testimony and in the Summary of Motion documents. Results A total of 192 cases were reviewed with eighty-three meeting inclusion criteria. CPGs were cited in three of eighty-three surgical malpractice cases (3.6 per cent), none of which were surgery specific. Conclusion CPGs appear to be rarely cited in surgical civil court cases and when referenced, they relate to non-surgical aspects of care. However, their violation may provide courts with decisive grounds for legal deliberation. Further studies evaluating a larger number of settlement cases using insurance company data would be invaluable to fully understand the role of surgical and non-surgical guidelines in shaping surgical medicolegal proceedings.