Research article

Physicians' communication skills with patients and legal liability in decided medical malpractice litigation cases in Japan

Tomoko Hamasaki¹ , Tadamichi Takehara¹ and Akihito Hagihara²

¹  Division of Community Oral Health Science, Kyushu Dental College, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu 803-8580, Japan

²  Department of Health Services Management and Policy, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medicine, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan

author email corresponding author email

BMC Family Practice 2008, 9:43doi:10.1186/1471-2296-9-43

Published:	25 July 2008

Abstract

Background

In medical malpractice litigations in recent years in Japan, it is notable that the growing number of medical litigation cases includes the issue of a doctor's explanation to the patient as a pivotal point. The objective of this study was to identify factors of physicians' communication skills with patients, as related to their legal liability, and differences in doctors' communication skills with patients by the type of medical facility.

Methods

Decisions of medical malpractice litigation cases between 1988 and 2005 in Japan, the pivotal issue of which was a physician's explanation, were analyzed in the study. The content of each decision was summarized using the study variables (information about the patient, doctor, manner of the doctor's explanation, and subsequent litigation), and a database comprising the content of each decision (N = 100) was constructed. In order to evaluate an association between doctors' communication skills with patients and the outcome of the litigation, the analysis was performed based on the outcome of litigation or the type of medical facility.

Results

The ratio of acknowledged physician liability by court decision was lower in cases in which the doctor's explanation occurred before treatment or surgery (p = 0.013). The ratio of acknowledged physician liability by court decision was higher in cases of elective or non-urgent treatment (p = 0.046). The ratio of acknowledged physician liability by court decision was higher in clinics than in hospital groups (p = 0.036).

Conclusion

These findings are beneficial for the prevention of medical disputes and improvement of patient-physician communication.