Incident reporting is an important method to identify risks because learning from the reports is crucial in developing and implementing effective improvements. A medical malpractice claims analysis is an important tool in any case. Both incident reports and claims show cases of damage caused to patients, despite incident reporting comprising near misses, cases where no event occurred and no-harm events. We therefore compare the two worlds to assess whether they are similar or definitively different. From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2021, the claims database of Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS collected 843 claims. From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, the incident-reporting database collected 1919 events. In order to compare the two, we used IBNR calculation, usually adopted by the insurance industry to determine loss to a company and to evaluate the real number of adverse events that occurred. Indeed, the number of reported adverse events almost overlapped with the total number of events, which is indicative that incurred-but-not-reported events are practically irrelevant. The distribution of damage events reported as claims in the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 and related to incidents that occurred in the months of the same period, grouped by quarter, was then compared with the distribution of damage events reported as adverse events and sentinel events in the same period, grouped by quarter. The analysis of the claims database showed that the claims trend is slightly decreasing. However, the analysis of the reports database showed that, in the period 2020–2021, the reports trend was increasing. In our study, the comparison of the two, malpractice claims and incident reporting, documented many differences and weak areas of overlap. Nevertheless, this contribution represents the first attempt to compare the two and new studies focusing on single types of adverse events are, therefore, desirable.

(1) Background: Identifying hospital-related critical, and excellent, areas represents the main goal of this paper, in both a national and local setting. Information was collected and organized for an internal company’s reports, regarding civil litigation that has been affecting the hospital, to relate the obtained results with the phenomenon of medical malpractice on a national scale. This is for the development of targeted improvement strategies, and for investing available resources in a proficient way. (2) Methods: In the present study, data from claims management in Umberto I General Hospital, Agostino Gemelli University Hospital Foundation and Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital Foundation, from 2013 to 2020 were collected. A total of 2098 files were examined, and a set of 13 outcome indicators in the assessment of “quality of care” was proposed. (3) Results: From the total number, only 779 records (37.1%) were attributable to the categories indexable for the present analysis. This data highlights how, following a correct and rigorous categorization of hospital events, it is possible to analyze these medico-legal aspects using a small number of indicators. Furthermore, it is important to consider how a consistent percentage of remaining events was difficult to index, and was also of poor scientific interest. (4) Conclusions: The proposed indicators do not require standards to be compared to, but provide a useful instrument for comparative purposes. In fact, in addition to comparative assessment between different business realities distributed throughout the territory, the use of outcome indicators allows for a longitudinal analysis evaluating the performance of an individual structure over time.