Medico-legal and ethical consequences of complications in surgery, with regard to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Abstract
Unfortunately, surgical activity is inevitably associated with the development of a certain number of postoperative complications. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) are minimally invasive but technically demanding procedures with a relatively high complication rate and multiple risks. In recent years, public attention to the results of medical activities and the number of lawsuits filed against doctors has been steadily growing in all countries. In such conditions, the development of a complication after ERCP/EST, which has all the external signs of iatrogenic, may serve as a basis for complaints for medical negligence. Although administrative and legal claims to charge doctors with malpractice are usually based on poor treatment outcomes, the decision of the patient or relatives to file them is often dictated by factors other than medical ones. The paper analyzes the main ethical and medico-legal consequences of complications, as well as the proper actions of a surgeon or interventional endoscopist after their appearance.
About the Authors
E. V. Pitel
Medical Center “Sanatate”
Moldova, Republic of
Moldova, Republic of
Chisinau
S. E. Gutu
Institute of Urgent Medicine
Moldova, Republic of
Moldova, Republic of
Chisinau
E. V. Gutu
Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy
Moldova, Republic of
Moldova, Republic of
Chisinau
References
1. Wall A., Angelos P., Brown D. et al. Ethics in Surgery // Curr. Probl. Surg. 2013. Vol. 50, № 3. P. 99–134.
2. Mansell V. J., Mansell M. A. Medico-legal issues // Hakim N. S., Papalois V. E., ed. Surgical complications. Diagnosis and treatment. London : Imperial College Press, 2007. P. 953–978.
3. Schein M. et al. (ed.). Schein's Common Sense Prevention and Management of Surgical Complications: For surgeons, residents, lawyers, and even those who never have any complications. Tfm Publishing Limited, 2013.
4. Zenilman J. C., Haskel M. A., McCabe J. et al. Closed claim review from a single carrier in New York: the real costs of malpractice in surgery and factors that determine outcomes // Am. J. Surg. 2012. Vol. 203, № 6. P. 733–740.
5. O’Sullivan S., Crippen C., Ponich T. Are patients informed when they consent to ERCP? // Can. J. Gastroenterol. 2002. Vol. 16, № 3. P. 154–158.
6. Gawande A. A., Zinner M. J., Studdert D. M. et al. Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals // Surgery. 2003. Vol. 133, № 6. P. 614–621.
7. Rio-Tinto R., Devière J. Prophylaxis of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: The Gap between Evidence-Based Guidelines and Clinical Practice // GE Port. J. Gastroenterol. 2019. Vol. 26, № 1. P. 3–4.
8. Cotton P. B. Analysis of 59 ERCP lawsuits; mainly about indications // Gastrointest. Endosc. 2006. Vol. 63, № 3. P. 378–382.
9. Rácz I., Rejchrt S., Hassan M. Complications of ERCP: Ethical obligations and legal consequences // Dig. Dis. 2008. Vol. 26, № 1. P. 49–55.
10. Cotton P. B., Williams C. B. Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy: the fundamentals. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. P. 7–61.
11. British Society of Gastroenterology: Guidelines for informed consent for endoscopic procedures. Guidelines in Gastroenterology. London, British Society of Gastroenterology, 1999. URL: http://www.bsg.org.uk/guidelines/consent.html.
12. Griffen F. D., Stephens L. S., Alexander J. B. et al. Violations of behavioral practices revealed in closed claims reviews // Ann. Surg. 2008. Vol. 248, № 3. P. 468–474.
13. Cotton P. B., Eisen G. M., Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop // Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010. Vol. 71, № 3. P. 446–454.
Review
For citations:
Pitel E.V., Gutu S.E., Gutu E.V. Medico-legal and ethical consequences of complications in surgery, with regard to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Title in english. 2020;15(3):16-20. (In Russ.)
Views:
93
Email this article 