Résumé
Background: following a complaint, any doctor who fails to comply with the code of medical ethics may be subject to disciplinary action by the Council of the Order. Identifying the main reasons for complaints would help to avoid and prevent them.Aim: the main objective of this study was to describe the jurisprudence of disciplinary litigation in appeal and cassation concerning general practitioners in France, based on available data published in 2021.Methods: this was a retrospective quantitative descriptive study. Anonymized data were collected from the National Council of the Order of Physicians website. The primary endpoint was the proportions of grounds for disciplinary complaints based on the files examined. The secondary endpoints were the proportions of decisions taken and of the nature of the complainants.Results: a total of 107 files were included in the study. The main category of reason for complaint was "administrative" (59%), followed by "questioning the doctor's competence" and "reception and relational" (32% each), and the "doctor's duty" (27%). The most common decision was to "reject the complaint" (36%). "First instance disciplinary chambers" decisions remained identical in 62% of cases. Complainants were the "Departmental Council of the Order of Physicians" (39%), the "nonphysician natural person" entity (31%), then patients and practitioners (25% each).Conclusion: our results were consistent with existing literature, while providing new insights. The study was exhaustive for data from hearings, but a generalization to all appeal and cassation decisions was not possible. It is important to respect the medical code of ethics in an environment that seems increasingly procedural, to prevent litigation and defensive medicine. An exhaustive survey of medical disputes in France could complement our results.