 |
 |

Retinopathy of Prematurity Malpractice Claims
Monte D. Mills, MD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(6):803-804.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
It is not an exaggeration to describe the current practice environment for ophthalmologists caring for neonates at risk for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) as a crisis; there are increasing liability claims and judgments against ophthalmologists for ROP and a worsening scarcity of ophthalmologists willing to treat ROP. Newspaper headlines and academic journals document the record malpractice judgments related to ROP. Although there is no evidence that blindness from ROP is increasing in the United States, Day et al1 describe the experience of one ophthalmic malpractice insurance provider, showing a disproportionately high number of claims and large indemnity judgments related to ROP.
Simultaneously, ophthalmologists are choosing to avoid caring for patients with ROP, and neonatologists are having difficulty finding ophthalmologists to care for their patients.2
Are these 2 trends related? The obvious answer, both from standard economics theory and responses of the ophthalmologists themselves,2 is yes; ophthalmologists . . . [Full Text of this Article] AUTHOR INFORMATION
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Retinopathy of Prematurity Malpractice Claims: The Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company Experience
Shelley Day, Anne M. Menke, and Richard L. Abbott
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(6):794-798.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|