title: Moral reasoning and malpractice. A pilot study of orthopedic surgeons.
abstract: The relationship between moral reasoning and malpractice claims was studied in 53 orthopedic surgeons. Levels of moral reasoning were defined by the percentage of principled responses (P-score) on Rest's Defining Issues Test, while annualized rates of malpractice claims were computed on the basis of data from a regional, physician-owned, interindemnity/liability protection trust. Orthopedic surgeons with fewer than 0.20 claims per year demonstrated significantly (P = 0.04) higher levels of moral reasoning (mean P-score of 43.8) than did those with claims rates higher than 0.40 claims per year (mean P-score of 38.0). Only 1 of 13 orthopedists with P-scores over 50 was found in the higher claims group, suggesting that high levels of moral reasoning may provide a protective element against malpractice claims.
authors.affiliation: American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
authors.forename: D C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Baldwin
authors.forename: T E
authors.initials: TE
authors.lastname: Adamson
authors.forename: D J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Self
authors.forename: T J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Sheehan
authors.forename: A A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Oppenberg
mesh_terms: D004992:Ethics, Medical; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008318:Malpractice; D009014:Morals; D009985:Orthopedics; D010865:Pilot Projects; D011581:Psychological Tests