An Effective Program to Reduce Malpractice Claims and Payments in a Large Orthopaedic Practice

Background: High reliability in health care requires a balance between intentionally designed systems and individual professional accountability. One element of accountability includes a process for addressing clinicians whose practices are associated with a disproportionate share of patient complaints. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS), a tiered intervention model to reduce patient complaints about clinicians.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving a southeastern U.S. orthopaedic group practice. The study assessed the implementation of the PARS program and subsequent malpractice claims from 2004 to 2020.

Results: The implementation of PARS was associated with an 83% reduction in malpractice claims cost per high-risk clinician after intervention (p = 0.05; Wilcoxon rank sum test). The overall practice group experienced an 87% reduction in mean annual claims cost per clinician (p = 0.007; segmented regression). The successful adoption required essential elements such as PARS champions, peer messengers, an Office of Patient Affairs, and a clear statement of practice values and professionalism expectations at the time of onboarding.

Conclusions: The PARS program was successfully adopted within a surgical specialty group as a part of ongoing risk prevention and management efforts. The period following PARS was associated with a retrospectively measured reduction in malpractice claim costs. The PARS program can be effectively implemented in a large, single-specialty orthopaedic practice setting and, although not necessarily causal, was, in our case, associated with a period of reduced malpractice claim costs.

Clinical relevance: We have learned in previous research that there are clear links between professionalism and patient outcomes (e.g., surgical complications), but agree that the focus here on medical malpractice is not directly clinical.