Reply to f your classmates—from different states if possible—after reviewing the

Reply to f your classmates—from different
states if possible—after reviewing the information provided post and comparing
your state stats. Address some of the problems, if any, with the current
malpractice legal system related to malpractice.
Mine
APRNs
and Malpractice
Massachusetts State has reported a gradual
increase in claims over medical-related malpractices among advanced practice
nurses (APNs) and medical doctors (MDs) (Myers et al., 2020). National
Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) is the most comprehensive source of APN and MD
malpractice claims, lawsuits, and settlements. The review of the tables
illustrated in chapter 29 reveals that NPDB has received more malpractice
claims suing MDs than medical APNs between the data collection period from 1990
to 2014 (Joel, 2018, p. 451). For instance, the reports of medical malpractice
payments in Massachusetts have indicated that more physicians, including
medical doctors, are implicated with 6363 suits against 127 suits against APNs.
Table 29.1 indicates that only 127 suits were filed against APNs between 1990
and 2014 in Massachusetts. However, table 29.3 shows that 6,363 suits have been
filed implicating physicians in medical malpractice payments in Massachusetts
State. 19% of APNs and 40% of MDs associated with medical malpractice payments
received advanced actions for their misconduct.
Hooker Nelson assessed the contrasting
reports for APNS and MDs and linked malpractice to professional liability
(Joel, 2018, p. 450). I note that professional liability results in a situation
where utilization of medical practice among MDs exposes them to more risk of
malpractice payment. Conversely, APNs are exposed to a significantly lower
probability of malpractice payment which is 24 times lower than Physicians.
Despite fewer adverse claims against APNs, they also report high
malpractice-related payouts because their single pay is enormous and affects
the overall mean. Predominant allegations were associated with MDs services,
including diagnosis, treatment, and medication prescription, implicating more
on physicians than nurses. Several reports against doctors’ medical malpractice
payments were linked to more exposure to professional liability than APNs.
Malpractice suits against physicians and
nurses affect patient access because it complicates patient care, compromises
commitment, and develop attitudes (Texas University, 2016). Adverse actions
against physicians and APNs make other practitioners lack motivation and may
result in a turnover. Patients will also experience difficulty being attended
by the physicians they sue because of fear of revenge. Physicians may move to
other states where malpractice is manageable. Besides, the rising malpractice
pays changed employers or states to places where the pay is affordable and
justified limiting patient access to healthcare.
PEER
Malpractice
In
my state, Nevada, in the period between 1990 and 2014, there were 5 adverse
actions and against APRNs and 32 reports of suits and settlements against
APRNs. This number is significantly low compared to that of MDs which was 865
cases for adverse actions and 1965 medical malpractice payments and suits
(Joel, 2018). It is also worth noting that through the years there have not
been adverse action against APRNs in Nevada, apart from one case in 2002, 2008,
and 2014, and two cases in 2004. This trend is similar for suits filed APRNs,
with most years recording one to 2 cases, and the highest number of cases being
in 2001 (Joel, 2018). These numbers are starkly different from MD cases where
the number of suits ranged between 60 and 90 for most of the years, with
reduced frequency from 2012.
The
lower number of adverse actions and suits against APRNs in Nevada compared to
MDs is attributable to the number of professionals. There are more MDs in the
practice compared to APRNs; therefore, naturally, the frequency of the cases
will be less for nurses. Another reason for this difference in adverse actions
and lawsuits against APRNs and MDs is that in most states, including Nevada,
nurses have full practice authority; especially since the stated shifted from
its collaborative practice model for nurses to full practice as at 2013 (VanBeuge
& Walker, 2014). As such, the increase in malpractice, especially because
of errors, is bound to be apparent in physicians; hence, explaining the higher
number of suits and adverse actions against them.
Another
probable cause of this difference is that it is likely that nurses in Nevada
may have been more careful than the physicians not to experience any
certification exposures that led to direct or indirect financial liabilities.
Joel (2018) argues that unprofessional conduct, failure to fulfil requirements
for continuing education, and renewing state licenses could lead to financial
exposure, which is not covered by professional liability insurance policy.
Malpractice
suits affect patient access by limiting their interaction with the MDs. If an
MD has a suit based on malpractice, in some cases, their licenses to practice
may be revoked. This means that the physician may not see their clients
especially if the verdict renders them guilty. In such situations, the
patients’ access to the physician is diminished since the MD is no longer
allowed to practice. Another way that suits affect patient access is on the MDs
side, where they develop a negative reputation for the suit or malpractice. A
possible outcome is that patients may lose trust and confidence in the
practitioner and change their provider, which reduces or limits access to
patients. Lastly, malpractice affects patient access for the MD and the patient
is that if costs of litigation for malpractice become too burdensome, the MD
may decide to leave practice to work in related fields that have less
litigation risk (Studdert et al., 2019). In such scenarios, the supply of the
MDs lowers, increasing their demand and limited access by the patients. To add to
this, lawsuits against MDs or APRNs tends to lower their morale, which also
limits patient access to quality healthcare from motivated practitioners.