An anonymous online survey performed using Google Forms was widely circulated among neurosurgeons practicing in India via email and social media platforms. The questionnaire consisted of 38 questions covering the various aspects of medicolegal issues involved in neurosurgery practice.
Results: A total of 221 survey responses were received, out of which 214 responses were included in the final analysis, barring 7 responders who had no work experience in India. The respondents were categorized according to their working arrangements and work experience. Out of all of the respondents, 20 (9.3%) had ≥ 1 malpractice suits filed against them. More than 90% of the respondents believed that malpractice suits are on the rise in India. Almost half of the respondents believed the advent of teleconsultation is further compounding the risk of malpractice suits, and 66.4% of respondents felt that they were inadequately trained during residency to deal with medicolegal issues. Most respondents (88.8%) felt that neurosurgeons working in the government sector had lesser chances of facing litigations in comparison to those working in the private sector. The practice of obtaining video proof of consent was more commonly reported by respondents working in freelancing and private settings (45.1%) and those with multiple affiliations (61.3%) compared to respondents practicing in government settings (22.8%) (p < 0.001). Neurosurgeons working in the private sector were more likely to alter management and refer sick patients to higher-volume treatment centers to avoid malpractice suits than their government counterparts (p = 0.043 and 0.006, respectively). The practices pertaining to legal preparedness were also found to be significantly higher among the respondents from the private sector (p < 0.001).
This survey highlights the apprehensions of neurosurgeons in India with regard to rising malpractice suits and the subsequent increase of defensive neurosurgical practices, especially in the private sector. A stronger legal framework for providing for quick redress of patient complaints, while deterring frivolous malpractice suits, can go a long way to allay these fears. There is a dire need for systematic training of neurosurgeons regarding legal preparedness, which should begin during residency 1).
An expert-panel (19 neurointerventionalists from 8 countries) answered structured, anonymized on-line questionnaires with iterative feedback-loops. Panel-consensus was defined as agreement ≥ 70% for binary closed-ended questions/≥ 50% for closed-ended questions with > 2 response options.
Results: Panel members answered a total of 5 survey rounds. They acknowledged that there is insufficient data for evidence-based recommendations in many aspects of antiplatelet management for intracranial stenting due to underlying atherosclerosis in the setting of EVT. They believed that antiplatelet management should follow a standardized regimen, irrespective of imaging findings and reperfusion quality. There was no consensus on the timing of antiplatelet-therapy initiation. Aspirin was the preferred antiplatelet agent for the peri-procedural period, and oral Aspirin in combination with a P2Y12 inhibitor was the favored postprocedural regimen.
Conclusion: Data on antiplatelet management for intracranial stenting due to underlying atherosclerosis in the setting of EVT are limited. Panel-members in this study achieved consensus on postprocedural antiplatelet management but did not agree upon a preprocedural and intraprocedural antiplatelet regimen. Further prospective studies to optimize antiplatelet regimens are needed 2).