Interesting article, thanks. I think it's worth mentioning to any resident to give more than a few minutes thought to what state you want to practice in after training, and studying the medical malpractice environment there, tort reform laws, statute of limitations, etc..
I had an attending also provide an insightful pearl to ponder on when picking a place to practice. He said... "sometimes it doesn't even matter how good you are, but some basic things like the local reputation of the hospital...can have a dramatic impact on how the pt perceives your abilities and how quickly they might be willing to sue..."
Made a lot of sense when I thought about it... If the pt thinks it's a bad hospital and has the perception that doctors make routine mistakes there and "has heard things through the grapevine", etc.. It can influence whether they regard you as competent or not.
Also, pay attention to your contracts and whether the hospital gives you the ability to defend your case or if you are made to comply with an out of court settlement. When you settle out of court, regardless of whether you did anything wrong, your name will always show up as such, and will follow you around. Dirty lawyer tactics these days are to sue every single doctor that had contact with the pt during their hospital course, regardless of when the adverse outcome happened. This forces the hospital to pay more money to defend more doctors...making an out of court settlement a more attractive and cheaper alternative. If I treat the pt in the ED, you provide perioperative management/anesthesia, the surgeon operates, and something happens 10 days later, regardless of if a physician made a mistake 10d later in the hospital causing an adverse outcome...if the hospital settles after we've all been named and our names aren't dropped, we all go down as listed for an out of court settlement, always implying guilt. Nobody wants stuff like that following them around.