Compensation Claims After Treatment of Achilles Tendon Ruptures in Norway From 2010 to 2020
Background: Compensation claims caused by medical treatment errors provide valuable insights into patients' experiences with received medical treatment and can help identify injuries and disabilities that might be preventable through optimized care. The objective of this retrospective descripti...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2025-08-01
|
| Series: | Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114251361475 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: Compensation claims caused by medical treatment errors provide valuable insights into patients' experiences with received medical treatment and can help identify injuries and disabilities that might be preventable through optimized care. The objective of this retrospective descriptive study was to characterize accepted compensation claims filed after treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) in Norway, and to explore whether claim outcomes were associated with treatment modality or institutional catchment area. Methods: All claims filed to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) after treatment of ATR between 2010 and 2020 were collected and categorized. The claims were organised based on whether they were accepted or denied, the initial treatment given, patient demographics, the reasons given by patients for filing claims, and the rationale provided by the NPE for accepting or rejecting compensation claims. Additionally, hospital patient catchment population were analyzed in relation to accepted claims. Results: One hundred forty-six compensation claims were received, of which 61 (41.8%) were accepted. Most accepted claims were related to surgical treatment (n = 30, 49%) or insufficient treatment (n = 22, 36%). The most frequent reason for claim acceptance was delayed diagnosis and/or treatment (15/61, 25%), followed by postoperative infections (10/61, 16%). There was no statistically significant correlation between accepted claims and institutional catchment area population. Conclusion: Delayed or missed diagnosis was the most common reason for accepted compensation claims following treatment for ATR. The study found no correlation between accepted claims and the catchment area population of the institution delivering the treatment. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective cohort study. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2473-0114 |