Litigation in Canada against anesthesiologists practicing regional anesthesia. A review of closed claims. (University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada) <i>Can J Anaeth</i> 2000;47:105–112.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review discussed the pattern of malpractice litigation related to regional anesthesia in Canada. Source information for this review came from the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). From 1990 to 1997 there were 7,909 closed legal actions involving all CMPA members. Of these, there were 310 cases involving anesthesiologists, of which 61 cases (approximately 20%) were related to regional anesthesia. Forty‐two of the cases involved neuraxial blocks and the legal outcome was favorable in 37 claims. There were 19 claims that involved peripheral nerve blocks; all of these had favorable outcomes. Overall, 10% of the regional anesthesia claims had unfavorable outcomes, compared with 28% of all anesthesia‐related claims and 30% of all CMPA members' claims. The degree of disability in the regional anesthesia claims were: none 10%; minor 49%; major 36%; and catastrophic 5%. There were no deaths in the malpractice claims involving regional anesthesia, compared with 17% in the all anesthesia group and 11% in all members' claims. Conclude that 20% of all anesthesia claims in Canada are related to regional anesthesia. The legal outcome of these claims is favorable 90% of the time. There were no deaths in the regional anesthesia claims.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".