Why was the midwife's argument unacceptable? Review of issues to prevent recurrence of medical malpractice. (English)

Purpose Focusing on the views of midwives in court, examining the care and accountability of midwives will lead to the identification of important issues that would help prevent medical malpractice. The objective of this study was to identify issues related to the prevention of medical accidents based on legal cases on medical malpractice in which the negligence of midwives was recognized. Methods This study used a legal database to search medical malpractice cases from 1999 to 2020. We selected and analyzed the cases in which most midwives' arguments were not recognized among the main issues based on the search results. For analysis, we used a method to organize the contention of the parties and prepare the background of the problem based on the medical history chart in chronological order. Results The keywords "medical malpractice" and/or "childbirth" were searched between April and December 2020. Ultimately, two cases were included for analysis. The court's factual findings were determined "Why the midwife's argument wasn't accepted"? "Inadequate records and retention methods," "estimation of midwife's technique based on submitted materials," "evaluation of consistency," "impression based on evidence of inconsistency from other healthcare professionals," and "impact of initial response in trials" were identified as issues in the documentary evidence and testimony. Conclusion According to an examination of the documentary evidence, inadequacies in records and retention methods raise doubts about the evidence's value. Furthermore, the submitted data suggested that the midwife's technique was flawed. The consistency assessments of witnesses revealed that the consistency and differences in testimony between healthcare providers affect court conviction. Finally, it is important to take responsibility for one's actions in this process given that the actions taken while engaging as midwives can be verified based on the evidence submitted and the testimony of midwives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Japan Academy of Midwifery is the property of Japan Academy of Midwifery and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)