You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content


Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Can shared decision-making reduce medical malpractice litigation? A systematic review

Study Design N Intervention Age Outcomes Conclusion & legal decision Quality scores
Barry et al. [28] Quasi-experimental (simulated scenarios) 47 A video-based decision aid for PSA testing 20-70, M = 50 - Focus group voting results: whether the physician met the standard of care. - Standard of care met if a shared decision-making process is documented in the patients’ notes: voted by 72% of mock jurors 10/26
- Standard of care met if decision aid used prior to decision-making: voted by 94% of mock jurors
Beckman et al. [27] Qualitative study 45 NA 20-80 - Reason for litigation; - Relationship issues identified in 71% of the depositions. 7/10
- Specialties of physicians; - 68% of all issues identified related to the physician’s failure to communicate clearly and transparently and to consider the patient and family views and preferences
- Type and frequency of relationship issues;
- Who suggested maloccurence.
Merenstein [29] Case study 1 NA 53 - Causes and outcome of the medical malpractice trial Dr Merenstein’s residency was found liable for not meeting the standard of care, despite having complied with the principles of shared decision-making, evidence-based medicine and the National guidelines. 6/29
Stapleton et al. [30] Qualitative study (observation and in depth interviews) 886 Evidence-based leaflets for pregnancy Not known - Participants’ views on the use of evidence-based leaflets and its influence on litigation Health care providers felt that ordering more tests and procedures offered better protection against litigation than promoting evidence-based leaflets and patient preferences. 7/10
Um [31] Case study 1 NA 33 - Causes and outcome of the medical malpractice trial An obstetrician who discounted his patient’s wish to undergo amniocentesis testing was found guilty for interfering with the patient’s self-determination, after the plaintiff gave birth to a baby diagnosed with Down’s syndrome. 14/29