The scope of reflections aimed at pursuing the optimal management of resources for what could be the Healthcare of the Future could not overlook Law 24/2017 (so-called Gelli-Bianco Law), over six years after its entry into force. The survey investigated the following areas: characteristics and dimensional parameters of the Company; description of governance, medical malpractice/litigation; description of the economic-financial strategy used; phenomenological assessment of the evaluation of the company’s professional rating and the interaction between medical malpractice and clinical governance.
The methodology for collecting information and data on these topics took into account the possible great heterogeneity of different company articulations as well as the relatively low knowledge of some terms or operational phases. Data related to three themes are then presented, divided into north, central, and south. The main results are summarized in the following terms: claims assessment, impact of clinical-health risk, economic and financial management, economic-financial tools, and professional reliability. Absence of a reliable method for verifying the results obtained. In various contexts, a reduction in claims frequency is declared without empirical evidence support, as this dynamic can be assessed over a period longer than managerial assignments. Another important aspect seems to emerge from the inadequate attention to elements such as medical records and adequate professional expertise in managing processes that have a significant economic impact on the Company. In the southern and central regions, the management of medical malpractice seems to emerge as a “problem” to be solved rather than an opportunity to better manage resources and clinical risk. Finally, one of the most evident critical aspects seems to be the connection between information gleaned from medical malpractice reports and the management of clinical-health risks. The absence of adequate statistical and analytical study of such data reduces the impact on risk almost exclusively to reactive actions (audits) with limited attention to interventions on the main clinical governance resources.