Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Sex differences in medico-legal action against doctors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Emily Unwin, Katherine Woolf, Clare Wadlow, Henry W. W. Potts, Jane Dacre

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The relationship between male sex and poor performance in doctors remains unclear, with high profile studies showing conflicting results. Nevertheless, it is an important first step towards understanding the causes of poor performance in doctors. This article aims to establish the robustness of the association between male sex and poor performance in doctors, internationally and over time.

Methods

The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2015. Backward and forward citation searching was performed. Journals that yielded the majority of the eligible articles and journals in the medical education field were electronically searched, along with the conference and poster abstracts from two of the largest international medical education conferences. Studies reporting original data, written in English or French, examining the association between sex and medico-legal action against doctors were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data from the full texts of the studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A random effect meta-analysis model was used to summarize and assess the effect of doctors’ sex on medico-legal action. Extracted outcomes included disciplinary action by a medical regulatory board, malpractice experience, referral to a medical regulatory body, complaints received by a healthcare complaints body, criminal cases, and medico-legal matter with a medical defence organisation.

Results

Overall, 32 reports examining the association between doctors’ sex and medico-legal action were included in the systematic review (n=4,054,551), of which 27 found that male doctors were more likely to have experienced medico-legal action. 19 reports were included in the meta-analysis (n=3,794,486, including 20,666 cases). Results showed male doctors had nearly two and a half times the odds of being subject to medico-legal action than female doctors. Heterogeneity was present in all meta-analyses.

Conclusion

Male doctors are more likely to have had experienced medico-legal actions compared to female doctors. This finding is robust internationally, across outcomes of varying severity, and over time.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
General Medical Council. The state of medical education and practice in the UK. London: GMC; 2014.
2.
Federation of State Medical Boards. U.S. Medical Regulatory Trends and Actions.Federation of State Medical Boards; 2014.
3.
4.
Archer J, Regan de Bere S, Bryce M, Nunn S, Lynn N, Coombes L, et al. Understanding the rise in Fitness to Practise complaints from members of the public. Plymouth: Plymouth University; 2014.
5.
6.
7.
Morrison J, Wickersham P. Physicians disciplined by a state medical board. JAMA. 1998;279:1889–93.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Papadakis MA, Hodgson CS, Teherani A, Kohatsu ND. Unprofessional behavior in medical school is associated with subsequent disciplinary action by a state medical board. Acad Med. 2004;79:244–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Papadakis MA, Teherani A, Banach MA, Knettler TR, Rattner SL, Stern DT, et al. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2673–82. doi:10.​1056/​NEJMsa052596.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
12.
13.
14.
Alam A, Klemensberg J, Griesman J, Bell CM. The characteristics of physicians disciplined by professional colleges in Canada. BMJ Open. 2011;5:e166–72.
15.
16.
Cardarelli R, Licciardone JC, Ramirez G. Predicting risk for disciplinary action by a state medical board. Tex Med. 2004;100:84–90.PubMed
17.
Clay SW, Conatser RR. Characteristics of physicians disciplined by the State Medical Board of Ohio. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003;103:81–8.PubMed
18.
Elkin KJ, Spittal MJ, Elkin DJ, Studdert DM. Doctors disciplined for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2009. Med J Aust. 2011;194:452–6.PubMed
19.
20.
Papadakis MA, Arnold GK, Blank LL, Holmboe ES, Lipner RS. Performance during internal medicine residency training and subsequent disciplinary action by state licensing boards. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:869–76.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
23.
24.
Baldwin L-ML EH, Hart LG, Greer T, Lloyd M, Rosenblatt RA. Characteristics of physicians with obstetric malpractice claims experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:1050–4.
25.
Chauhan SP, Chauhan VB, Cowan BD, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC. Professional liability claims and Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists members: myth versus reality. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1820–6. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ajog.​2004.​12.​058. Discussion 6–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Ely JW, Dawson JD, Young PR, Doebbeling BN, Goerdt CJ, Elder NC, et al. Malpractice claims against family physicians are the best doctors sued more? J Fam Pract. 1999;48:23–30.PubMed
27.
Hickson GB, Federspiel CF, Pichert JW, Miller CS, Gauld-Jaeger J, Bost P. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA. 2002;287:2951–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Taragin MI, Wilczek AP, Karns ME, Trout R, Carson JL. Physician demographics and the risk of medical malpractice. Am J Med. 1992;93:537–42.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Weisman CS, Teitelbaum MA, Morlock LL. Malpractice claims experience associated with fertility-control services among young obstetrician-gynecologists. Med Care. 1988;26:298–306.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Weycker DA, Jensen GA. Medical malpractice among physicians: who will be sued and who will pay? Health Care Manag Sci. 2000;3:269–77.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
St GI. Doctors whose competence has been reviewed under the Medical Practitioners Act 1995. N Z Med J. 2003;116:1–6.
33.
Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, Wenghofer E, Jacques A, Klass D, et al. Physician scores on a national clinical skills examination as predictors of complaints to medical regulatory authorities. JAMA. 2007;298:993–1001. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​298.​9.​993.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Nash LM, Kelly PJ, Daly MG, Walter G, van Ekert EH, Walton M, et al. Australian doctors’ involvement in medicolegal matters: a cross-sectional self-report study. Med J Aust. 2009;191:436–40.PubMed
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Reports of medico-legal data from the mass-investigation performed by the Medico-Legal Society of Japan (IX). Autopsy cases of therapeutic complications. Nihon Hoigaku Zasshi. 1983;37:434–54.
41.
Bratland SZ, Hunskar S. Medico-legal assessments of complaints against general practitioners. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2006;126:166–9.PubMed
42.
Fujita RR, Santos IC. A denouncement of medical errors in Goias state. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2009;55:283–9.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Oomen RJ, Biesaart MC. Removal from the Dutch healthcare professionals register: considerations taken into account by the disciplinary tribunal from 2006 to 2011. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156:A5269.PubMed
44.
Rydberg U, Gerhardsson Y. Medical students and physicians, alcohol and narcotics. “We will not swear loyalty until death”. Lakartidningen. 1995;92:164–6.PubMed
45.
Ozen S, Liman Z, Es H, Ozer Y, Sanli AN, Ozver I, et al. Psychiatry cases alleged as malpractice that were evaluated by the 3rd specialty board of council of Turkish forensic medicine; An archival research between the years 2005–2010. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni. 2013;23:S287.
46.
Simonsen J. Doctors’ mistakes. Material from the Medico-Legal Council from a 15-year period. Ugeskr Laeger. 1973;135:2463–9.PubMed
47.
Elston MA. Women and medicine: the future. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2009.
48.
Boulis AK, Jacobs JA. The changing face of medicine: Women doctors and the evolution of health care in America. New York: Cornell University Press; 2008.
Metadata
Title
Sex differences in medico-legal action against doctors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Emily Unwin
Katherine Woolf
Clare Wadlow
Henry W. W. Potts
Jane Dacre
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0413-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medicine 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

A scoping review of rapid review methods

Opinion

A proposed panel of biomarkers of healthy ageing

Research article

The Brief Memory and Executive Test (BMET) for detecting vascular cognitive impairment in small vessel disease: a validation study

Research article

Effects on mortality of a nutritional intervention for malnourished HIV-infected adults referred for antiretroviral therapy: a randomised controlled trial

Commentary

The future of the development of medicines in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Research article

Clinical determinants of early parasitological response to ACTs in African patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria: a literature review and meta-analysis of individual patient data