The influence factors of medical disputes in Shanghai and implications - from the perspective of doctor, patient and disease

• Main Authors: Yu Liu (Author), Pei Wang (Author), Yonghai Bai (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2022-09-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12913-022-08490-5; 1472-6963
• Keywords: Medical dispute; Dispute level; Factor of doctor; Factor of patient; Factor of disease; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: BMC Health Services Research, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2022)

Abstract Objective This study aimed to explore the causes and factors behind medical disputes that occurred across eight hospitals in Shanghai over a three-year period (January 2018 to December 2020), thus providing targeted suggestions for amelioration. Methods Stratified sampling was employed to collect 561 cases in which medical disputes occurred at two tertiary hospitals, two secondary hospitals, and four primary hospitals in Shanghai. The causes were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while the factors affecting the dispute level (i.e., 1 through 4, with 1 being most severe) were analyzed via one-way ANOVA and logistic regression analyses. Results Doctors and patients variously contributed to the medical disputes; 86.1% were related to doctors, while 13.9% were related to patients. For doctors, there are seventeen factors that influenced medical disputes. In particular, the insufficient communication (28.82%) is the most prominent factor in the doctors' factors. For patients, there are seven factors that influenced medical disputes. In particular, the misunderstanding of medical behavior (43.48%) is the most prominent factor in the patients' factors. Of all investigated medical disputes, 406 were level 4 (78%), 95 were level 3 (18%), and 19 were level 2 (4%); there were no level 1 disputes. The reasons for different level placements included the disease classification, treatment effect, diagnosis and treatment regulation violations by doctors, and low technical levels. Conclusions In addition to strengthening training about clinical and communication skills, the hospitals should establish quality control mechanisms for case records and construct rapid, standardized referral mechanisms. The doctors should attach great importance to the quality and urgency of treatment given to critically ill patients, who must be informed about their prognoses in a timely manner to avoid medical disputes and physical deterioration. The patients should actively cooperate with their doctors in the treatment process, moderate any unrealistic expectations that patients may have about the outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic particularly, doctors and patients should strengthen empathy and mutual trust more, then defeat disease together.