Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Dissatisfied Patient

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Comprehensive Guide to Male Aesthetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery

  • 88 Accesses

Abstract

The surgeon’s goal is to consistently achieve the best possible outcome based on each patient’s specific requests and needs. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, unfavorable results and complications, while uncommon, will occur, thus becoming an integral part of our surgical practice. Such conditions could result in an unsatisfied patient and a distressed surgeon as well.

Reasons for a postoperatively unhappy and dissatisfied patient are multiple and complex and can result from several reasons. These range from inadequate initial consultation and patient’s unrealistic expectations to true surgical errors or complications that might require reoperations and a short or lengthy recovery period; all further aggravating an already difficult situation.

Every surgeon should be well versed and prepared on how to prevent and manage as much as humanly possible, unfavorable outcomes. He/she should be able to manage patients with the utmost respect, patience, a calm demeanor, and above all honesty, even in difficult and hostile encounters. The goal should be to reach the most satisfactory resolution within the most reasonable timeframe. In addition to the true medical issues, the surgeon will need to take into consideration as well as other issues related to social, psychological, financial, and legal issues.

In this chapter, suggestions for using best practice advice and management of the unhappy and/or dissatisfied patient will be presented in detail based on personal experience and current thoughts on this topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Goldwyn RM. The dissatisfied patient. In: Goldwyn RM, editor. The unfavorable result in plastic surgery: avoidance and treatment. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company; 1984. p. 11–4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Goldwyn RM. Chapter 2: the dissatisfied patient. In: Cohen MN, Thaller SR, editors. The unfavorable result in plastic surgery: avoidance and treatment, vol. 1. New York, Stuttgart, Delhi, Rio de Janeiro: Thieme; 2018. p. 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nahai F. In: Nahai F, editor. The art of aesthetic surgery: principles and techniques. Quality Medical Publishers; St Louis Mi; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goldwyn RM. The patient and the plastic surgeon. 2nd ed. New York: Little Brown and Company; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National quality partners™action brief. shared decision making: a standard of care for all patients. 2017. www.qualityforum.org.

  6. O’Malley AS, Carrier ER, Docteur E, et all: Policy options to encourage patient-physician shared decision making. National Institute for health care reform. Foreign Policy Anal 5:1–10 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  7. American society of plastic surgeons: code of ethics of plastic surgeons. statement of principles of informed consent. 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hagopian CO, Ades TB, Hagopian TM, et al. Attitudes, beliefs and practices of aesthetic plastic surgeons regarding informed consent. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40:437–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ubbink DT, Santema TB, Lapid O. Shared decision-making in cosmetic medicine and aesthetic surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36:NP14–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human; building a safer health system. Institute of Medicine; Committee on Quality of Health Care in America; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. American Medical Association. Opinion 8.12. Patient information. Code of medical ethics. American Medical Association; 2006. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8497.html.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kachalia A. Improving patient safety though transparency. NEJM. 2013;369(18):16771679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ross NE, Newman WJ. The role of apology Laws in medical malpractice. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2021;49(3):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lambert BL, Centomani NM, Smith KM, et al. The “seven pillars” response to patient safety incidents: effects on medical liability processes and outcomes. Health Serv Res. 2016;51(6 Part II):2491–515.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. McDonald TB, Helmchen LA. Smith KM et all: responding to patient safety incidents: the “seven pillars”. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rohrich RJ. It’s okay to say “I am sorry”. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(5S):48S–50S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boyl P, Kang P, Mahabir R, Bernard RW. Variables that impact medical malpractice claims involving plastic surgeons in the United States. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(7):785–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boyd BJ, Moon HK, Mastrogiovanni DB. Plastic surgery and the malpractice industry. Plast Recostr Surg. 2021;147:239–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chamberlain CJ, Koniaris LG, Wu AW, Pawlik TM. Disclosure of “nonharmful” medical errors and other events. Arch Surg. 2012;147(3):282–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen JR: Advising clients to apologize: UF law scholarly repository (1999). http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/648.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McMichael B, Van Horn RL, Viscusi WK. “Sorry” is never enough: how state apology Laws fail to reduce medical malpractice liability risk. Stanford Law Rev. 2019;71:341–409.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Naber WJ; Several states protect physicians who apologize, but be careful. ACEP Now: https://www.acepnow.com/article/several-states-protect-physicians-who-apologize-but-be-careful/. 2021.

  23. Saitta N, Hodge S Jr. Efficacy of physician’s words of empathy: an overview of state apology Laws. J Osteop Med. 2012;112(5):302–6. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2012.112.5.302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Painter LM, Kidwell KM, Kidwell RP, et al. Do written disclosures of serious events increase risk of malpractice claims? One health care System’s experience. J Patient Saf. 2018;14:87–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kachalia A, Kaufman SR. Bootgman R et all: liability claims and cost before and after implementation of a medical error disclosure program. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(4):213–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. American Society of Plastic Surgeons: Code of ethics of plastic surgeons. IV. Expert testimony. 2022. p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Camp SM, Mills DC. The marriage of social media: a relationship to last a lifetime. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(3):349–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Devitt S, Kenkel JM. Social media: a necessary evil. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(6):700–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Economides JE, Fan KL, Pittman TA. An analysis of plastic surgeon’s social media use and perception. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(7):794–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gould DJ, Stevens WG, Nazarian S. A primer on social Media for Plastic Surgeons: what do I need to know about social media and how can I help my practice? Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(5):614–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gupta N, Dorfman R, Saadat S. Roostaeian: the plastic surgery social media influencer: ethical considerations and literature review. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(6):691–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. American Society of Plastic Surgeons: Code of ethics of plastic surgeons. II. Advertising. 2022. p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wokes JET, NR ML, Boyd M. Fake news, defamation, online reviews, and their potential consequences for aesthetic plastic surgeons. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(8):NP546-NP553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Reisman NR. Commentary on: fake news, defamation, and online reviews and their potential devastating consequences for aesthetic plastic surgeons. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(8):NP54–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Escoffery RM, Bauer JG. Manage your online reputation-or someone Else will. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(5):649–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic, Reconstructive and Cosmetic Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mimis N. Cohen

Authors
  1. Mimis N. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mimis N. Cohen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DeWitt Daughtry Department of Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

    Seth R. Thaller

  2. College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mimis N. Cohen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cohen, M.N. (2024). The Dissatisfied Patient. In: Thaller, S.R., Cohen, M.N. (eds) A Comprehensive Guide to Male Aesthetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48503-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48503-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-48502-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-48503-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation