Medical Malpractice Severity Peaks During Daylight Saving Time

Findings indicate elevated severity in both medical malpractice incidents and decisions regarding compensation during daylight saving time months compared to standard time months, even after adjusting for state observance of daylight saving time. Additionally, compensation decisions were higher during the week following the spring transition to daylight saving time, though the severity of medical incidents remained consistent.

Principal investigator Michael Scullin, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University, elucidated, “The spring daylight saving shift has long been associated with sleepiness, cardiovascular events, and driving accidents. However, we are now beginning to acknowledge its impact on decision-making processes at a population level.”

Published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine on March 6, the study underscores the vulnerability of medical errors and malpractice litigation to the effects of daylight saving time.

According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), standard time aligns more closely with solar time, which is crucial for maintaining the body’s circadian rhythm. Daylight saving time, by advancing clock time, disrupts this synchrony, affecting sleep, mood, and performance.

Analyzing 288,432 malpractice claims spanning from January 1990 to September 2018, researchers observed acute effects of daylight saving time by comparing claims before and after the spring time change. Chronic effects were assessed by comparing claims during daylight saving time months with those during standard time months.

Chenlu Gao, Ph.D., a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, noted, “While causality cannot be definitively established, our findings suggest that daylight saving time exerts an influence on healthcare outcomes and expenditures.”

Collating with previous research on the adverse effects of daylight saving time transitions, the study urges stakeholders and policymakers to reconsider its implications for public well-being.