Moral reasoning and malpractice. A pilot study of orthopedic surgeons.

Abstract

The relationship between moral reasoning and malpractice claims was studied in 53 orthopedic surgeons. Levels of moral reasoning were defined by the percentage of principled responses (P-score) on Rest's Defining Issues Test, while annualized rates of malpractice claims were computed on the basis of data from a regional, physician-owned, interindemnity/liability protection trust. Orthopedic surgeons with fewer than 0.20 claims per year demonstrated significantly (P = 0.04) higher levels of moral reasoning (mean P-score of 43.8) than did those with claims rates higher than 0.40 claims per year (mean P-score of 38.0). Only 1 of 13 orthopedists with P-scores over 50 was found in the higher claims group, suggesting that high levels of moral reasoning may provide a protective element against malpractice claims.