Forensic Obstetrics and Clinical Risk Factors

Abstract

Forensic obstetrics attracts much attention from forensic experts and the public owing to the professional, legal, public health, and not inconsiderable social-emotional aspects and directly correlates with maternal, fetoneonatal, and iatrogenic risk factors. Modern obstetrics and fetomaternal medicine must not be quantified and qualified based only on perinatal disease but also according to current obstetric problems that burden forensic obstetrics. Therefore, high-risk obstetrics as a significant medico-legal problem should be viewed from the point of view of the entire perinatal period with possible long-term consequences, hence the monitoring of complete perinatal and infant morbidity is of immediate importance for quality control and risk control in the profession. The task of forensic obstetrics is to assess the impact of risk factors on the occurrence of an adverse event and to assess whether it is an obstetric complication or obstetric malpractice. Acknowledging the mentioned facts is the only way we will develop high obstetric awareness, and we and pregnant women, birth attendants, midwives and patients, fetuses, and newborns will have professional safety with imminent but controlled obstetric risk and controlled expected complications. On the other hand, the fact that the statistics of perinatal (obstetrical) malpractice globally is not abating requires a change in obstetrical philosophy, especially the unreasonable epidemic increase of cesarean sections with a significant percentage of cesarean sections without medical indication and complications. It is necessary to introduce and maintain solid professionalism and bioethical norms in obstetrics with constant training of skills, which is emphasized by numerous authors and with which we fully agree. Forensic obstetrics is based on the principles of good clinical practice, professional guidelines of modern obstetrics, and ethical and deontological principles. It clearly shows the perfection and imperfection of biological systems that we can and cannot influence. However, we must act according to the rules of the clinical profession, deontological rules, and health laws to reduce clinical risk to the smallest possible extent. Attention should certainly be focused on reducing the disproportion between iatrogenic and maternal-fetoneonatal risk factors, which is the most common reason for litigation today.

Keywords

Forensic - Obstetrics - clinical risk - litigation - malpractice

Publication History

Received: 08 May 2024

Accepted after revision: 19 August 2024

Article published online:
25 September 2024

• References

• 1 Herczeg J. High-risk obstetrics, medicolegal problems. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997; 71: 181-185
• 2 Symon A. Obstetric Litigation from A–Z. Quay Books, Mark Allen Publishing Ltd; Wiltshire: 2001
• 3 Clements RV. Litigation in gynaecology. Rev Gynaecol Pract 2003; 3: 70-74
• 4 Weinstein L. Malpractice – the syndrome of the 80s. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 130-135
• 5 Russel KP. Forensic obstetrics. Calif Med 1959; 91: 117-120
• 6 Naujoks H. On forensic obstetrics. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1953; 109: 764-772
• 7 Pelz FJ, Hickl EJ. Häufige und schadensträchtige Behandlungsfehler in Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie. Gynäkologe 1999; 32: 953-959
• 8 Laros RK. Presidential address. Medico-legal issues in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1883-1889
• 9 Clements RV. Risk Management and Litigation in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. RCOG and RSM Press; London: 2004
• 10 Mavroforou A, Koumantakis E, Michalodimitrakis E. Physiciansʼ liability in obstetric and gynecology practice. Med Law 2005; 24: 1-9
• 11 Nelson KB. Can we prevent cerebral palsy?. N England J Med 2003; 349: 1765-176568
• 12 Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Handler SJ. et al. Litigation in obstetrics: does defensive medicine contribute to increase in cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; S305
• 13 Wolff F, Roth B. Risikogeburt und Risikoneugeborenes. Gynakologe 1997; 1: 10-16
• 14 Symonds EM. Medico-legal problems in obstetrics. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 13: 326-341
• 15 Habek D. Forensic expertise in obstetrics and gynecology – forensic expert experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 256: 1-5
• 16 Habek D, Prka M, Čartolovni A. et al. Caesarean section between doctrine to heresis. Medicoethical and deontological view of caesarology: an opinion. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2021; 48: 1-4
• 17 Habek D, Čartolovni A, Cerovac A. Medicolegal view of elective non-medical indicated caesarean section. Gynaecol Perinatol 2020; 298: 10-15
• 18 Perlmann JM. Intrapartum hypoxic-ischemic cerebral injury and subsequent cerebral palsy: medicolegal issues. Pediatrics 1997; 99: 851-859
• 19 Boog G. Cerebral palsy and perinatal asphyxia (II--Medicolegal implications and prevention)]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2011; 3: 146-173
• 20 Cohen WR, Schifrin BS. Medical negligence lawsuits relating to labor and delivery. Clin Perinatol 2007; 34: 345-360
• 21 Hirides PC, Hirides SC, Hirides C. Cerebral palsy and difficult birth. A scoping review. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 2023; 16: 209-219
• 22 Politi S, Mastroroberto L, Ghi T. The time has come for a paradigm shift in obstetricsʼ medico-legal litigations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2023; 284: 1-4
• 23 Schifrin BS, Soliman M, Koos B. Litigation related to intrapartum fetal surveillance. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 30: 87-97
• 24 Schwenzer T, Bahm J. Schulterdystokie und Plexusparese. Klinik, Prävention, Gutachten und Dokumentation. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin; 2016
• 25 Habek D. Medico-legal problems and shoulder dystocia. Med Leg J 2023; 91: 239-240
• 26 Habek D, Cerovac A. A forensic aspect of fetal shoulder dystocia. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2020; 224: 257-261
• 27 Stumpf PG, Anderson B, Lawrence H. et al. Obstetrician-gynecologistsʼ opinions about patient safety: costs and liability remain problems: are mandated reports a solution?. Womenʼs Health Issues 2009; 19: 8-13
• 28 McEwan A, Johnson IR. The problem of shoulder dystocia. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 11: 45-49
• 29 Mead J. Successful defense in the obstetric brachial palsy case. Healthcare and Law Digest. Clin Risk 2009; 15: 169-172
• 30 Burke N, Corcoran S, Ryan H. et al. Clinical risk management of obstetric anal sphincter injury. Clin Risk 2012; 18: 19-22
• 31 Strunk AL, Esser L, Frazier S. et al. Overview of the 1999 survey of professional liability. ACOG Clinical Review 2000; 5: 14-16
• 32 Weber B, Bender HG. Trends in der Begutachtung frauenärztlicher Tätigkeit. Gynäkologe 2012; 45: 409-412
• 33 Bender HG. Probleme des ärtzlichen Haftungsrechtes und der Interpretation der Aufklärung. Gynäkologe 2002; 35: 403-406
• 34 Mead J. Reported association between perinatal distress and SVT not proof of causation. Clin Risk 2009; 15: 86-87
• 35 Gründling H. Zwischen Evidenz und Forensik-Psychosomatik als Chance. Speculum 2007; 4: 13-18
• 36 Schlund GH. Juristische Aspekte im Rahmen der Geburtsmedizin. Zentralbl Gynakol 2003; 125: 404-408
• 37 Büken E, Büken NÖ, Büken B. Obstetric and gynecologic malpractice in Turkey: incidence, impact, causes and prevention. J Clin Forens Med 2004; 11: 233-247
• 38 Aldawood A. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill obstetric patient: a ten year review. Ann Saudi Med 2011; 31: 518-522
• 39 Scholefield H. Risk management in obstetrics. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 15: 237-243
• 40 Harding K. Risk management in obstetrics. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2011; 22: 1-6
• 41 Knox GE, Simpson KR. Perinatal high reliability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 88: 373-377
• 42 Habek D. Obstetrics malpractice or medical complication. Gynaecol Perinatol 2012; 21: 85-95
• 43 Cerovac A, Habek D, Cerovac E. et al. Obstetric shock and shock in obstetrics – steady obstetrical syndrome. Med Glas (Zenica) 2022; 19: 92-99
• 44 Raktong W, Sawaddisan R, Peeyananjarassri K. et al. Predictors and a scoring model for maternal near-miss and maternal death in Southern Thailand: a case-control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2024; 310: 1055-1062
• 45 Habek D, Marton I, Prka M. et al. Forensic gynecology and obstetrics. Hrsg. Medicinska naklada. Croatian Catholic University Zagreb; Zagreb: 2018
• 46 Rath WH. Postpartum hemorrhage--update on problems of definitions and diagnosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90: 421-428
• 47 Habek D, Tikvica Luetić A. Primary identification and reparation of the “buttonhole” tears is necessary. Int Urogynecol J 2021; 32: 227-228
• 48 Tuffnell DJ, Wright J. Risk management in obstetrics. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 12: 256-261
• 49 Annas GJ. Doctors, patients, and lawyers–two centuries of health law. NEJM 2012; 367: 445-450
• 50 Winn SH. Assessing and credentialing standards of care: the UK Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 21: 537-555
• 51 Carr KC, Jevitt C. Working with certified-nurse-midwives does not increase obstetrical liability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1495-1496
• 52 Glover M. Characteristics of paid malpractice claims among resident physicians from 2001 to 2015 in the United States. Acad Med 2020; 95: 255-262
• 53 Martín-Badia J, Obregón-Gutiérrez N, Goberna-Tricas J. Obstetric violence as an infringement on basic bioethical principles. Reflections inspired by focus groups with midwives. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 12553
• 54 Zaami S, Malvasi A, Marinelli E. Fundal pressure: risk factors in uterine rupture. The issue of liability: complication or malpractice?. J Perinat Med 2018; 46: 567-568
• 55 Habek D, Vuković Bobić M, Hrgović Z. Possible feto-maternal clinical risk of the Kristellerʼs expression. Cent Eur J Med 2008; 3: 183-186
• 56 Habek D, Cerovac A, Mikuš M. Kristellerʼs fundal expression: clinical, forensic and deontological controversies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023; 308: 1903-1905
• 57 Edozien L. Vaginal birth after Caesarean section: what information should women be given. Clin Risk 2007; 13: 127-130
• 58 Mead J. Obstetric admission plan not followed, but brain damage would have occurred anyway. Healthcare & Law Digest Clin Risk 2009; 15: 171-172
• 59 Hale RW. Legal issues impacting womenʼs access to care in the United States–the malpractice insurance crisis. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006; 94: 382-385
• 60 Lynch C, Coker A, Dua JA. A clinical analysis of 500 medico-legal claims evaluating the causes and assessing the potential benefit of alternative dispute resolution. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 103: 1236-1242
• 61 Habek D. Tocophobia: Is it being treated surgically?. Psychiatr Danub 2020; 32: 447-448
• 62 Mejia RB, Shinkunas LA, Ryan GL. Ethical issues identified by obstetrics and gynecology learners through a novel ethics curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 867
• 63 Candinas D. (Ed.). Unnötige Operationen?. Therap Umschau 2014; 71: 12
• 64 Gioia S, Mirtella D, Lancia M. et al. Fatal acute intracranial subdural hematoma after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: Case report and review of the literature. Am J Forens Med Pathol 2019; 40: 381-384
• 65 Argent VP. Pre-hospital risks of the reconfiguration of obstetric service. Clin Risk 2010; 16: 52-55
• 66 Habek D. Prehospital preterm difficult breech delivery – two case reports. Signa vitae 2015; 10: 12-20
• 67 Sestito R. Independent homebirth midwives in France: The persecution of a profession. Med Anthropol 2023; 42: 149-162
• 68 Glaser LM, Alvi FA, Milad MP. Trends in malpractice claims for obstetric and gynecologic procedures, 2005 through 2014. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217: 340
• 69 Xu X, Siefert KA, Jacobson PD. et al. The impact of malpractice burden on Michigan obstetrician-gynecologistsʼ career satisfaction. WHI 2008; 18: 229-237
• 70 Chauhan SP, Chauhan VB, Cowan BD. et al. Professional liability claims and Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists members: Myth versus reality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1820-1828
• 71 Kusior ME, Polak K, Sajuk N. et al. Analysis of forensic medical opinions issued in criminal cases of alleged medical error in obstetrics at the Department of Forensic Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, in 2010–2016. Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol 2020; 70: 19-43
• 72 Ghaith S, Campbell RL, Pollock JR. et al. Medical malpractice lawsuits involving trainees in obstetrics and gynecology in the USA. Healthcare (Basel) 2022; 10: 1328
• 73 Samuels A. Obstetrics and gynaecology and the law. Med Leg J 2022; 90: 143-146
• 74 Painter LM, Biggans KA, Turner CT. Risk management–obstetrics and gynecology perspective. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2023; 66: 331-341
• 75 AlBalushi AA, Al-Asmi A, Al-Shekaili W. et al. Medical malpractice in Oman: A 12-year retrospective record review. PLoS One 2023; 18: e0290349
• 76 Bayuo J, Koduah AO. Pattern and outcomes of medical malpractice cases in Ghana: a systematic content analysis. Ghana Med J 2022; 56: 322-330
• 77 Boubess I, Bezad R, Alami MH. Professional responsibility in obstetrics in Morocco: analyses of litigation files between 2015–2018. Pan Afr Med J 2022; 43: 150
• 78 Papadopoulos D, Berman S, House M. et al. Obstetriciansʼ reactions to the threat of medical malpractice litigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; S96
• 79 Mead J. Stllbirth claims. Clin Risk 2010; 16: 77-80
• 80 ACOG committee opinion. Coping with the stress of malpractice litigation. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2001; 74: 65-66
• 81 Strunk AL, Esser L, Frazier S. et al. Overview of the 1999 survey of professional liability. ACOG Clinical Review 2000; 5: 4-6
• 82 Wood L. Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts and maternity care: letʼs redesign services, not patch up outdated systems. Clinical Risk 2003; 9: 86-88
• 83 Habek D. Masking medical error in obstetrics – Clinical forensic and bioethical considerations. Ann Med Case Rep 2017; 1: 1010
• 84 Mejia RB, Shinkunas LA, Ryan GL. Ethical issues identified by obstetrics and gynecology learners through a novel ethics curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 867
• 85 Habek D. Medical expertise in obstetrics. Liječ Vjesn 2008; 130: 297-301