Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a25706490
DOI: 10.1055/a-2570-6490
Original article

Medicolegal aspects of digestive endoscopy: Results of a Chilean national survey

Oscar Corsi 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile (Ringgold ID: RIN28033)
,
María Jesús Fuenzalida
1   Department of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile (Ringgold ID: RIN28033)
,
José Ignacio Vargas 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile (Ringgold ID: RIN28033)
2   Endoscopy Unit, Hospital Clínico Red UC-CHRISTUS, Santiago, Chile
,
Verónica Silva
3   Department of Gastroenterology, Universidad de Chile Facultad de Medicina, Santiago, Chile (Ringgold ID: RIN37619)
4   Instituto Chileno-Japonés de Enfermedades Digestivas, Hospital Clínico San Borja Arriarán, Santiago, Chile (Ringgold ID: RIN60765)
,
Maximiliano Figueroa
5   Endoscopic Surgery Unit, Hospital Regional Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins, Rancagua, Chile
,
Juan Andrés Prato
6   Department of Psyquiatry, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile (Ringgold ID: RIN28033)
,
Andrea Künsemüller
7   Fundación de Asistencia Legal del Colegio Médico de Chile A.G. (FALMED), Santiago, Chile
,
Alberto Espino 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile (Ringgold ID: RIN28033)
2   Endoscopy Unit, Hospital Clínico Red UC-CHRISTUS, Santiago, Chile
› Author AffiliationsSupported by: Alberto Espino received a grant from the Medical Association of Chile – Colegio Médico de Chile A.G. (COLMED) Fondos Concursables COLMED Santiago 2023
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints


Abstract

Background and study aims

Medical professional liability (MPL) is a significant concern for gastrointestinal physicians, yet there are limited data available from Latin America. We aimed to assess frequency of complaints and lawsuits related to digestive endoscopy among gastrointestinal endoscopists in Chile and to identify associated factors.

Methods

An online survey collected sociodemographic data, information about endoscopy unit characteristics, and MPL-related experiences. Invitations were sent to 525 gastrointestinal endoscopists in Chile between August and September 2022. Associations between categorical variables were analyzed using the Chi-square test.

Results

In total, 140 endoscopists participated (response rate: 26.7%). Mean age was 48.8 years; 68.6% were gastroenterologists, 70.7% were male, and 95% had MPL insurance. Written complaints were reported by 55% of participants, with an average of 1.5 complaints per year. The most common causes were procedure costs, adverse events (AEs), and sedation issues. Colonoscopy was the procedure most frequently associated with complaints (63.2%). Complaints related to AEs included perforation (48.7%), hemorrhage (23.7%), pancreatitis (21.1%), and death (13.2%). Factors associated with complaints included years of endoscopic practice (P = 0.047), therapeutic procedures (P < 0.001), and patient satisfaction assessments (P = 0.048). Of respondents, 14.5% reported at least one lawsuit. Factors associated with lawsuits included age (P = 0.0047), male gender (P = 0.0033), Chilean nationality (P = 0.0257), therapeutic procedures (P = 0.004), and patient satisfaction assessments (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Gastrointestinal endoscopists are frequently exposed to complaints and lawsuits. Key factors include procedure costs, AEs, sedation practices, years of experience, type of endoscopic procedure, and communication. Proactive strategies to address these factors could mitigate medico-legal risks and improve patient outcomes.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Quality and logistical aspects - Quality management - Performance and complications - Training

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 04 July 2024

Accepted after revision: 24 March 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
31 March 2025

Article published online:
12 May 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Oscar Corsi, María Jesús Fuenzalida, José Ignacio Vargas, Verónica Silva, Maximiliano Figueroa, Juan Andrés Prato, Andrea Künsemüller, Alberto Espino. Medicolegal aspects of digestive endoscopy: Results of a Chilean national survey. Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a25706490.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2570-6490
 

  • References

  • 1 Kantrowitz MG. Medical malpractice and gastrointestinal endoscopy. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2022; 38: 467-471
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Adams MA, Allen JI. Medical professional liability in gastroenterology: Understanding the claims landscape and proposed mechanisms for reform. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2392-2396.e1
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D. et al. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 629-636
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Azizian J, Dalai C, Adams MA. et al. Medical professional liability in gastroenterology: definitions, trends, risk factors, provider behaviors, and implications. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 15: 909-918
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sheikh K, Webster G. Endoscopy-related litigation in UK: causes, costs and outcome. Gut 2010; 59: A56
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Panuganti PL, Hartnett DA, Eltorai AEM. et al. Colorectal Cancer Litigation: 1988–2018. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1525-1531
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Patel KS, Kothari P, Gantz O. et al. Current trends and predictors of case outcomes for malpractice in colonoscopy in the United States. J Clin Gastroenterol 2022; 56: 49-54
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Rubenstein JH, Saini SD, Kuhn L. et al. Influence of malpractice history on the practice of screening and surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 842-849
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hiyama T, Tanaka S, Yoshihara M. et al. Medical malpractice litigation related to gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japan: a two-decade review of civil court cases. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 6857-6860
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Everett SM, Triantafyllou K, Hassan C. et al. Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 952-966
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 ASGE Endoscopy Unit Quality Indicator Taskforce, Day LW, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopy units. VideoGIE 2017; 2: 119-140
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Day LW, Savides TJ. Patient Experience in the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 723-726
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Brown S, Bevan R, Rubin G. et al. Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1130-1140.e1-e9
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Valori R, Cortas G, de Lange T. et al. Performance measures for endoscopy services: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J 2019; 7: 21-44
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 López-Picazo J, Alberca de Las Parras F, Sánchez Del Río A. et al. Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy: introduction to structure, process, and outcome common indicators. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2017; 109: 435-450
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kerdsirichairat T, Shin EJ. Important quality metrics and standardization in endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2021; 31: 727-742
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 48-59
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ley 20584: Regula los derechos y deberes que tienen las personas en relación con acciones vinculadas a su atención en salud. https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1039348
  • 19 Verdugo AM, Cáceres C. Impacto económico de la judicialización en Chile. Repositorio Universidad de Chile. 2017 https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/145445/Verdugo%20Marchese%20Anamar%E2%94%9C%C2%A1a.pdf?sequence=1
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Suárez FM. Demandas por responsabilidad médica en Chile. Análisis de montos, condenas y duración. Rev Derecho Esc Postgrado 2015; 0: 1-28
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Hernandez LV, Klyve D, Regenbogen SE. Malpractice claims for endoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 5: 169-173
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L. et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 127-149
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Waschke KA, Anderson J, Valori RM. et al. ASGE principles of endoscopic training. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 27-34
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Lee JH, Kedia P, Stavropoulos SN. et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Management of Perforations in Gastrointestinal Tract: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 2252-2261.e2
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Pimentel-Nunes P, Pioche M, Albéniz E. et al. Curriculum for endoscopic submucosal dissection training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 980-992
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Tate DJ, Argenziano ME, Anderson J. et al. Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 645-679
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Johnson G, Webster G, Boškoski I. et al. Curriculum for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1071-1087
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Waddingham W, Kamran U, Kumar B. et al. Complications of diagnostic upper Gastrointestinal endoscopy: common and rare – recognition, assessment and management. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2022; 9: e000688
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, de Man RA. et al. The Global Rating Scale in clinical practice: a comprehensive quality assurance programme for endoscopy departments. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 919-924
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Sidhu R, Turnbull D, Haboubi H. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 2024; 73: 219-245
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Wallis CJD, Jerath A, Aminoltejari K. et al. Surgeon sex and long-term postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing common surgeries. JAMA Surg 2023; 158: 1185-1194
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Storm AC, Fishman DS. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 207-215.e2
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Everett SM, Triantafyllou K, Hassan C. et al. Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 952-966
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Miziara ID, Miziara CSMG. Medical errors, medical negligence and defensive medicine: A narrative review. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2022; 77: 100053
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 35 Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians’ views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research. Health Policy 2021; 125: 634-642
    Search in Google Scholar