OBJECTIVES: Italy is experiencing a crisis of malpractice litigation with important repercussions on the insurance industry (e.g., lower profits), physicians (e.g., defensive medicine), and the courts (e.g., work backlog, lengthy proceedings). We searched for common ground between legal systems in Italy and the United States and considered the implications for international collaborations in patient safety. METHODS: We examined the judicial frameworks of medical malpractice litigation in two countries with different legal foundations: the United States (a public-private system governed by common law) and Italy (a publicly financed healthcare system governed by civil law). RESULTS: We found important differences and similarities across the two systems that suggest a high compatibility for future comparisons and collaborations. Although many Italian hospitals maintain risk management programs, the U.S. emphasis on patient safety and quality has not yet been integrated into Italian healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we propose that the Italian system might benefit from assertively adopting some concepts from the U.S. system. In particular, we consider the role of the law and Italian medicolegal experts as key facilitators for the integration of patient safety and risk management units within Italian healthcare facilities.

Di Luca, A., Vetrugno, G., Pascali, V. L., Oliva, A., Ozonoff, A., Perspectives on Patient Safety and Medical Malpractice: A Comparison of Medical and Legal Systems in Italy and the United States, <<JOURNAL OF PATIENT SAFETY>>, 2019; 15 (4): e78-e81. [doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000460] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/133015]

Perspectives on Patient Safety and Medical Malpractice: A Comparison of Medical and Legal Systems in Italy and the United States

di Luca, Alessandro;Vetrugno, Giuseppe;Pascali, Vincenzo Lorenzo;Oliva, Antonio;
2019

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Italy is experiencing a crisis of malpractice litigation with important repercussions on the insurance industry (e.g., lower profits), physicians (e.g., defensive medicine), and the courts (e.g., work backlog, lengthy proceedings). We searched for common ground between legal systems in Italy and the United States and considered the implications for international collaborations in patient safety. METHODS: We examined the judicial frameworks of medical malpractice litigation in two countries with different legal foundations: the United States (a public-private system governed by common law) and Italy (a publicly financed healthcare system governed by civil law). RESULTS: We found important differences and similarities across the two systems that suggest a high compatibility for future comparisons and collaborations. Although many Italian hospitals maintain risk management programs, the U.S. emphasis on patient safety and quality has not yet been integrated into Italian healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we propose that the Italian system might benefit from assertively adopting some concepts from the U.S. system. In particular, we consider the role of the law and Italian medicolegal experts as key facilitators for the integration of patient safety and risk management units within Italian healthcare facilities.
Inglese
Di Luca, A., Vetrugno, G., Pascali, V. L., Oliva, A., Ozonoff, A., Perspectives on Patient Safety and Medical Malpractice: A Comparison of Medical and Legal Systems in Italy and the United States, <<JOURNAL OF PATIENT SAFETY>>, 2019; 15 (4): e78-e81. [doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000460] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/133015]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
133015.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia file ?: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Non specificato
Dimensione 2.16 MB
Formato Unknown
2.16 MB Unknown   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/133015
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact