Crossmark

Medical liability claims in gynaecologic care: retrospective analysis of claims related to gynaecology in the Netherlands (2005–2022) – Is there a connection between treatment indication, phase of treatment and the risk of medical malpractice claims?

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11943-8

Published Online: 2024-11-25

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

Klemann, Désirée

Hoopen, Rankie ten

Mertens, Helen

van Merode, Frits
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2024-11-25

Version of Record valid from 2024-11-25
More Information

Article History

Received: 3 March 2024

Accepted: 14 November 2024

First Online: 25 November 2024

Declarations

:

: This study was submitted to, and approved by, the Medical Ethics Review Committee (METC) from the MUMC + (file number METC 2021–3020). The METC confirmed that the <i>Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act</i> does not apply for this study and declared that no additional ethical review was obliged. Informed consent from study participants was not obtained, since the study is based on an anonymized, retrospective analysis of medical liability files.

: Not applicable, since the study is based on an anonymized, retrospective analysis of medical liability files.

: The authors declare no competing interests.

Document is current

Any future updates will be listed below