medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2009, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2009; 51 (2)

Epidemiological general profile of complaints treated at the National Medical Arbitration Commission. 1996-2007

Fajardo-Dolci GE, Hernández-Torres F, Santacruz-Varela J, Hernández-Ávila M, Kuri-Morales P, Gómez-Bernal E

Language: Spanish
References: 37
Page: 119-125
PDF size: 141.99 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. To analyze medical complaints over a period of 11 years, for making recommendations for prevention and improving planning for responding. Material and Methods. We studied the medical complaints at the National Medical Arbitration Commission (Conamed, per its acronym in Spanish) between 1996 and 2007 using descriptive statistics to identify their general profile in relation to the variables of time, place and person. We also studied the frequency of evident medical malpractice as well as the severity of the damage it produces. Results. The request for responses to medical complaints increased between 1996 and 2007 and there was less demand between July and December. Two states in the country account for 69.7% of the complaints and 74.0% are from public institutions. Fifty-eight percent come from women and the 25-34 and 65+ age groups have the highest percentage. We found in 27.0% of the complaints there is evidence of medical malpractice and obstetrics and gynecology have the highest percentage of complaints, physical harm and severity of injury. Complaints about treatment are nearly four times more than diagnosis. Conclusions. It is necessary to improve the quality of diagnosis and treatment and identify cost-effective measures to reduce medical malpractice and the severity of physical damage in patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Decreto de creación de la Comisión Nacional de Arbitraje Médico (Conamed): México. Diario Oficial de la Federación del 03 de junio, 1996.

  2. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Reglamento de Procedimientos para la Atención de Quejas Médicas y Gestión Pericial de la Conamed: México. Diario Oficial de la Federación del 25 de julio, 2006.

  3. World Health Organization. The conceptual framework for the international classification for patient safety. Geneva: WHO 2007. Available from: http//www.who.int/patientsafety/taxonomy/icps_form/en/index.html

  4. Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-168-SSA1-1998. México: SSA, 1998.

  5. Hickson BG, Federspiel FCH, Pichert WJ, Miller SC, Gauld-Jaeger J, Bost P. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA 2002;287:2951-2957.

  6. Daniel AE, Burn RJ, Horarik S. Complaints about medical practice. Med J Aust 1999;170:598-602.

  7. Sage MW. Putting the patient in patient safety. Linking patient complaints and malpractice. JAMA 2002;287:3003-3005.

  8. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1966;44:166-206.

  9. Jimenez-Corona ME, Ponce-de-Leon RS, Rangel FS, Mohar BA. Epidemiology of medical complaints in Mexico: identifying a general profile. Int J Qual Health Care 2006;18:220-223.

  10. Tena-Tamayo C, Sotelo J. Malpractice in Mexico: arbitration no litigation. Br Med J 2005;331:448-451.

  11. Fenn P, Diacon S, Gray A, Hodges R, Rickman N. Current cost of medical negligence in NHS hospitals: analysis of claims. Br Med J 2000;320:1567-1571.

  12. Bovjerg RR, Petronis RK. The relationship between physicians’ malpractice claims history and later claims. Does the past predict the futur? JAMA 1994;272:1421-1426.

  13. Hampton T. Payments for adverse events. JAMA 2006;296:1958.

  14. Kravitz LR, Rolph EJ, McGuigan K. Malpractice claims data as a quality improvement tool. I. Epidemiology of error in four specialities. JAMA 1991;266:2087-2092.

  15. Vincent AC, Coulter A. Patient safety: what about the patient? Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:76-80.

  16. Aasland GO, Ferde R. Impact of feeling responsible for adverse events on doctors’ personal and professional lives: the importance of being open to criticism from colleagues. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:13-17.

  17. Kessler PD, Sage MW, Becker JD. Impact of malpractice reforms on a supply of physician services. JAMA 2005;293:2618-2625.

  18. Cooper GL, Rout U, Faragher B. Mental health, job satisfaction and job stress among general practitioners. Br Med J 1989;298:366-370.

  19. Jain A, Ogden J. General practitioners’ experiences of patients complaints: qualitative study. Br Med J 1999;318:1596-1599.

  20. Sistema de Atención de Quejas Médicas (SAQMED). Comisión Nacional de Arbitraje Médico (Conamed). Serie histórica de datos 1996-2006.

  21. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds.). To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 2000.

  22. Graham KG, Itagaky WM, Volpintesta E, Hickson BG, Pichert WJ, Miller SC, et al. Patient complaints and risk of being sued. JAMA 2002;288:1585-1586.

  23. Armitage JK, Schneiderman JL, Bass AR. Response of physicians to medical complaints in men and woman. JAMA 1979;241:2186-2187.

  24. Vincent C. Understanding and responding to adverse events. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1051-1056.

  25. Fisseni G, Pentzek M, Abholz HH. Responding to serious medical error in general practice --consequences for the GPs involved: analysis of 75 cases from Germany. Fam Pract 2008;25:9-13.

  26. Raydel VS, Molina LJ, Solís TC. Aprender de lo sucedido. Análisis de las quejas presentadas ante la Comisión Nacional de Arbitraje Médico. Salud Publica Mex 2001;43:444-454.

  27. Robinson AR, Hohmann KB, Rifkin JI, Topp D, Gilroy CM, Pickard JA, et al. Physician and public opinions on quality of health care and the problem of medical errors. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:2186-2190.

  28. Bismark MM et al. Relationship between complaints and quality of care in New Zealand: a descriptive analysis of complaints and non-complaints following adverse events. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:17-22.

  29. Fernandez-Varela MH. The National Medical Arbitration Commission and the quality of care. Gac Med Mex 1997;133:57-60.

  30. Peña VR, Rodríguez MJR, López CJM. Factores asociados con la gestión de quejas contra médicos que laboran en hospitales del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Salud Publica Mex 2004; 46:210-215.

  31. Tena TC, Ruelas BJM, Sánchez GAE, Rivera CAE, Moctezuma B, Manuel LGR. Derechos de los pacientes en México. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2002;40:523-529.

  32. Rees LJ. Patients views on quality care in general practice: Literature review. Soc Sci Med 1994;39:655-670.

  33. Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ, Paternini D, Antonius D, Dunham M, Lewis CE. Prevalence and sources of patients’ unmet expectations for care. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:730-737.

  34. Leape LL et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991;324:377-384.

  35. Vincent Ch et al. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. Br Med J 2001;322:517-519.

  36. Weingart SN et al. Epidemiology of medical error. Br Med J 2000;320:774-777.

  37. Infante CC. Quejas médicas. México: Editores de Textos Mexicanos, 2006.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com