Download a PDF of the Current Issue 2015 Volume 12 Number 3 July- September


Sara C. Charles, MD, Professor of Psychiatry (Emerita), University of Illinois Medical School, Chicago Reprinted with author permission
10-3-2 In this article, I discuss how and why physicians react to an accusation of malpractice and the range of strategies they use to diminish the emotional disequilibrium that accompanies this experience. Information presented here is based on survey and interview studies and extensive clinical experience.   Medical work is highly stressful, and physicians increasingly feel loss of control over their clinical decision making. Nonetheless, most physicians are competent and achieve a reasonable level of satisfaction in their personal and professional lives that serves as good preparation for managing the litigation experience. Physicians are especially challenged, however, when an unexpected outcome— such as an unanticipated death—occurs. If this event is followed by a charge of malpractice, they may feel suddenly overwhelmed and ʺout of control, ʺ with their ability to function temporarily compromised.   REACTIONS TO BEING SUED The reaction to being sued often is prefaced by a period of emotional turmoil following the catastrophic event or negative outcome. The physician may feel unduly responsible or guilty, genuine sorrow for the persons involved, dread, anxiety, and fear of being sued. These feelings may not resolve in any way until the statute of limitations expires or a suit is filed. More than 95% of physicians react to being sued by experiencing periods of emotional distress during all or portions of the lengthy process of litigation.1 This may begin immediately on being served with the complaint by a sense of outrage, shock, or dread about the personal and financial effects of the eventual outcome. This is the first reaction in a series that is similar to those that accompany any major life event.2 Feelings of intense anger, frustration, inner tension and insomnia are frequent throughout this period. Symptoms of major depressive disorder (prevalence, 27%‐39%), adjustment disorder (20%‐ 53%), and the onset or exacerbation of a physical illness (2%‐15%) occur, although fewer than 2% acknowledge drug or alcohol misuse.1,3,4 A general internist, for example, described awakening with his first episode of atrial fibrillation after being served with his first malpractice suit the previous afternoon. This generated emergency medical consultation accompanied by profound psychological effects on the physician. Some two years later, it figured prominently in his decision to settle and to retire earlier than he had originally planned.   WHY DO PHYSICIANS REACT? The more clearly we identify the sources of stress specific to our own case, the better able we are to cope effectively. Lawyers and insurers often ad‐ vise: ʺDon’t take this accusation personally; it is just the cost of doing business.ʺ Although each lawsuit —its participants, the nature of the injury, and particular circumstances—is unique, physicians share common feelings and reactions. These reactions are related to two major factors: the personality characteristics of physicians and the nature of tort law. Physicians are self‐critical and, therefore, have a tendency to doubt themselves, be vulnerable to feelings of guilt, and to possess an exaggerated sense of responsibility.5 These personality features render them particularly vulnerable to the demands of tort law because fault must be established for compensation to be paid. In medical malpractice law, fault is based on a deviation from the standard of care that resulted in the injury. As a group, physicians are acutely sensitive to any suggestion that they have failed to meet the standard of care or are not ʺgoodʺ doctors. Their honor—that sense of personal integrity that most people cherish—is at issue, and the threat of its loss is devastating. This accusation of failure represents a personal assault: the central psychological event that generates the stress that gives rise to the symptoms and reactions described. Other factors unique to each case, such as the physician’s relationship with the patient, the nature of the patient’s injury, and the amount of surrounding publicity, all play a role in generating stress. Last, litigation is intrinsically adversarial and creates an environment foreign to that in which most physicians work. This contributes to feelings of isolation, frustration, and dependency that threaten their usual feelings of equilibrium.   COPING WITH LITIGATION The first step in coping is to obtain an adequate knowledge base about what can be anticipated psychologically and about the process in which the physician is now a participant, albeit an unwilling one. Second, throughout the entire process, physicians need to observe their emotional and physical reactions. If they do not have a personal physician, they should get one. If persistent symptoms of any kind—physical illness, depression, or substance misuse—occur, they should consult their physician. Physicians should not self‐medicate even when bothered by the common symptom of insomnia. They also need to observe if their relationships with family or in their professional life have changed and take the appropriate steps to remedy these. A feeling of being out of control pervades the litigation experience. Coping is a complex process in which regaining mastery is central. Clinical experience reveals that if physicians are shown strategies that they can apply ʺin their own way,ʺ regaining mastery by their own efforts, they feel better about themselves. Ideally, the more rapidly this is achieved, the better because chronic stress can lead to further disability. Rapid restoration of emotional equilibrium is suggested as a way of reducing further risk because risk for an additional claim doubles for physicians who have a claim in the previous year.6 These findings suggest that emotionally stressful events may play a role in a physician’s vulnerability to being involved in critical claim incidents. A personal event, such as marital discord or practice disruptions, can occur both before and after such an incident, and the claim itself may be so psycho‐ logically disruptive that the physician changes in ways that affect his or her vulnerability to critical incidents. Useful coping strategies can be conceptualized in three categories7. Social Support As with any major life event, physicians’ need to share their feelings and reactions with someone who is trustworthy, understanding, and sensitive to their concerns during what is, for some, the most stressful period of their entire life.8 Legal counsel will advise not to talk about the details of the case to anyone. This is good legal advice, based on fears that the physician may say something that will potentially jeopardize the case. It is not, however, good psychological advice. Most of us can derive comfort confiding in an associate, legal counsel, our spouse, office staff, or a respected senior physician, all of whom can appreciate the concerns of legal counsel. Restoring Mastery The entire process challenges physiciansʹ feelings of mastery as it seeks to establish who was in control of, and therefore, responsible for, the events in question. Sued physicians often experience a ʺsee‐ saw effectʺ: up one week and down another with alternating feelings of confidence and low self‐ esteem, of assurance and doubt. They may not be able to control the pace or even the outcome of their case, but engaging in activities that make them feel in better control of both their personal and professional lives and participating actively in their defense will help restore their sense of balance. Changing the Meaning of the Event The malpractice charge suggests that we are in‐ competent and, therefore, ʺbad doctors.ʺ We need to change this perception and to develop inner peace and good feelings about ourselves. It helps to recognize that litigation is about compensation, not competence, that those who are sued are often the best in their field in working with the sick and high‐risk patients, and that most physicians are eventually vindicated.   CONCLUSIONS An understanding of litigation stress and some anticipation of its potential psychological effects on physicians enable them to take steps to counteract the negative feelings and reactions that occur. The goal is to understand and diminish the effects of stress and regain a sense of emotional equilibrium to function as a good defendant and competent practitioner during the lengthy litigation process.   Author: Sara Charles, M.D. professor of psychiatry (emerita) at the University of Illinois Medical School, Chicago, has published and lectured widely on physician stress and medical malpractice litigation.   References: 1 Charles SC, Pyskoty CE, Nelson A. Physicians on trial: self‐ reported reactions to malpractice trials. West J Med 1988;148:358‐ 360. 2 Horowitz MJ. Stress Response Syndromes. 2nd ed. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson; 1986. 3 Charles SC, Wilbert JR, Kennedy EC. Physicians’ self‐reports of reactions to malpractice litigation. Am J Psychiatry 1984;141:563‐565. 4 Charles SC, Wilbert JR, Franke KJ. Sued and non-sued physicians’ self‐reported reactions to malpractice litigation. Am J Psychiatry 1985;142:437‐440. 5 Gabbard GO. The role of compulsiveness in the normal physician. JAMA 1985;254:2926‐2929. 6 Frisch PR, Charles SC, Gibbons RD, Hedeker D. Role of previous claims and specialty on the effectiveness of risk management education for office‐based physicians. West J Med 1995;163:346‐350. 7 Charles SC, Warnecke RB, Nelson A, Pyskoty CE. Appraisal for the events as a factor in coping with malpractice litigation. Behaved 1988;14:148‐155. 8 Charles SC, Warnecke RB, Wilbert JR, Lichtenberg R, DeJesus C. Sued and non-sued physicians: satisfactions and sources of stress. Psychosomatics 1987;28:462‐468.