Medical liability related legislation and insurance policies around the world: A narrative literature review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Medical law defines the rules of healthcare by specifying the rights of healthcare consumers while at the same time defining the obligations of healthcare providers. When clinicians fail to provide the standard of care, medical malpractice claims arise, leading to medical liability. While many malpractice claims allege deviation from the lex artis, a substantial proportion do not ultimately establish negligence and are dismissed or settled without a finding of fault. Due to the significant impact of medical negligence on the quality of medical care, as well as on the domestic and global economy, different countries adopt different systems for managing these disputes. Finally, the mandatory or non-mandatory medical malpractice insurance makes doctors carry out their medical work without the fear of medical liability. In fact, in most countries today, doctors are given the opportunity to choose between claims-made and occurrence-based policies of medical malpractice insurance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a narrative review of scientific and legal works from different countries. For the comparison of medical liability systems and insurance policies a comprehensive review of databases and legal texts was conducted. RESULTS: This study compares medical liability and malpractice insurance systems across countries, examining variations in the handling of malpractice claims and their implications. The system is adversarial in many countries, especially in the United States, to allow for a substantial compensation, while other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, focus on mediation and structured compensation processes. Notably, France, Japan and other countries follow a no-fault system, of reasoning that the system is more efficient in the sense that it reduces the patient's burden of proving negligence and thus expedites the compensation. These findings reveal how each country negotiates the balance between patient rights and healthcare provider protections, and, in turn, how these negotiations affect malpractice insurance costs and legal reforms. DISCUSSION: The analysis contrasts fault-based systems which offer large compensation awards with no-fault systems which focus on quick compensation but may lack accountability. Countries with high litigation rates like the US and Brazil have higher insurance costs, while countries like Canada and Australia have stabilized their systems through reforms. Medical liability insurance options, claims-made versus occurrence-based, raise different economic and legal concerns. Occurrence-based policies are more expensive for younger professionals, but they provide longer-term coverage than claims-made policies. CONCLUSION: Global medical liability frameworks vary considerably, reflecting cultural, economic and legal contexts. However, the comparison reveals that no system is perfect and that there is something to learn from each.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».