title: [Resolution of medical complaints by arbitration. Analysis of 140 cases].
abstract: The author studied 140 complex medical complaints handled by an Alternative Disputes Resolution Institution (CONAMED), between June 1996 and December 1999. There were 79 females and 61 males, cases originated in public hospitals 93 (66.4%) and private hospitals or practitioners 47 (33.6%). Several cases were treated sequentially in both types of institutions. The medical specialties involved were in frequency order: Neurosurgery, General Surgery, Gyn-Ob, Anesthesiology, Traumatology and Orthopedics, Oncology, Emergency, and 22 others. The causes of complaints were: Surgical treatment, Medical treatment, Diagnosis, Anesthesia, and mixed causes. There were 59 deaths, 43 anatomic or functional loses, disability or sequelae; and 34 recoveries. CONAMED delivered 27 arbitration verdicts, 94 expert opinions asked by prosecutors or human rights organizations, and 1 technical advice to medical authorities. Some resolutions included more than one case. More than half of physicians involved were found not guilty of malpractice. Even though the main CONAMED purpose is to improve the quality of Medical Care acting as The Health Ombudsman, its performance may be on behalf of medical practitioners.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Valle-González
mesh_terms: D008318:Malpractice; D008800:Mexico; D017008:Negotiating