A better approach to medical malpractice claims? The University of Michigan experience.

TLDR

The root causes of medical malpractice claims are deeper and closer to home than most in the medical community care to admit. The article aims to compare the traditional approach to claims with the University of Michigan’s approach using a true case example. It does so by analyzing a real case to illustrate the differences between the two approaches. The University of Michigan Health System’s experience shows that a patient‑focused, principle‑driven response to claims reduces lawsuits and improves clinical care, benefiting patients, providers, the institution, future patients, and lawyers.

Abstract

The root causes of medical malpractice claims are deeper and closer to home than most in the medical community care to admit. The University of Michigan Health System's experience suggests that a response by the medical community more directly aimed at what drives patients to call lawyers would more effectively reduce claims, without compromising meritorious defenses. More importantly, honest assessments of medical care give rise to clinical improvements that reduce patient injuries. Using a true case example, this article compares the traditional approach to claims with what is being done at the University of Michigan. The case example illustrates how an honest, principle-driven approach to claims is better for all those involved-the patient, the healthcare providers, the institution, future patients, and even the lawyers.