• M Aïssou, D Lemesle, S Abbas, and A Lienhart.
• Service d'anesthésie-réanimation, hôpital Saint-Antoine, université Paris-VI, 184, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Antoine, 75012 Paris, France. mourad.aissou@sat.aphp.fr
• Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2012 May 1;31(5):447-53.

AbstractAll the files of complications of regional anaesthesias requiring an expertise for a Regional Commission for Conciliation and Compensation for medical accidents (CRCI) between 2003 and 2008 were analyzed. The objective was to estimate the homogeneity of the appointed experts, their opinions and the opinions of the CRCI. Querying the database, shared by the National Office for Compensation for Medical Accidents (ONIAM) and the CRCI, and identified 40 files corresponding to the selection criteria. The expertise carried out involved an anaesthetist in 27 cases, always registered, either on the national list of the experts in medical accidents, or on one list of court-appointed experts. Conversely, in 13 cases, no specialist performing himself the technique in question was involved in the expertise, and sometimes the expert was registered on any list. Mostly, the non-specialists do not conclude to medical malpractice. This was not the case in a single file, where the anaesthetist sought and obtained the addition of an anaesthetist in a new expertise, which concluded differently. Damages assessed were highly variable, but the given evidence provided to understand why. The CRCI have generally followed the opinions of the experts, except in a few cases where the evidence allowed a different opinion without requiring a new expertise. In conclusion, the abnormalities in the appointment of experts do not seem to have had consequences in terms of damage assessment, but may alter the balance between causes faulty and not faulty, in favour of the latter.Copyright © 2012 Société française d’anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…