{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016421780466724288, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00950734658599827, 'mean_word_length': 5.579545454545454, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Obstetric litigation: The importance of the quality of clinical files and its influence on expertise conclusions

Abstract To appreciate the Portuguese circumstances concerning situations of obstetric medico-legal conflicts and to evaluate the influence of the quality of files in expert conclusions, an analysis of all cases of obstetric medical responsibility from 2001–11 was carried out. File quality was evaluated by absence or insufficiency of clinical information supplied, by poor quality of document copies and by the registered incongruities among all the health professionals involved. Clinical files sent for forensic analysis were defective in most cases (89.5%). In about 11% of cases, expert opinion was inconclusive as a result of the poor quality of the clinical files sent for technical and scientific analysis. This situation is particularly serious in cases where the reason for the dispute was asphyxia, traumatic lesions of the newborn following instrumented delivery or shoulder dystocia and maternal sequelae, where the lack or absence of information, and poor quality copies were significantly associated with inconclusive opinions.