Miguel A Cortel-LeBlanc, Karen Lemay, Sue Woods, Francis Bakewell, Richard Liu, Gary Garber
{"title":"医疗法律风险和急诊科医疗指示的使用。","authors":"Miguel A Cortel-LeBlanc, Karen Lemay, Sue Woods, Francis Bakewell, Richard Liu, Gary Garber","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00522-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The medico-legal risk associated with application of medical directives in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe and analyze factors associated with medico-legal risk in cases involving medical directives in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a descriptive analysis of closed medico-legal cases [hospital complaints, regulatory authority (i.e., College) complaints, and civil legal actions] involving emergency physicians in Canadian EDs involving medical directives (alternate terms including \"standing order\", \"nursing initiated\", \"nurse initiated\", \"nursing order\", \"triage initiated\", \"triage ordered\", \"directive\", \"ED protocol\", and \"ED's protocol\"). We used data from closed cases involving the Canadian Medical Protective Association from January 2016 until December 2021. We abstracted descriptive factors of the cases and used a framework for contributing factors classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2016 until 2021, 43,332 cases were closed and 1957 involved emergency physicians for which there was medico-legal information available for analysis. In all, 28 involved emergency physicians and medical directives. Situational awareness, team communication, and issues with clinical decision-making were the most important factors contributing to harm and medico-legal risk. Peer experts were critical of physicians not reviewing all results available for patients when initiated through a directive, misinterpreting test results, a less than thorough initial assessment, and of failing to reassess patients or re-order investigations when indicated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the medico-legal risk exposure from the use of medical directives in the ED is low. Emergency departments may consider implementing systems to support adherence to medical directive policies, ensure physicians are alerted when medical directives are completed in a timely fashion, and leverage tools to notify the healthcare team when results have not been reviewed.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 7","pages":"589-597"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medico-legal risk and use of medical directives in the emergency department.\",\"authors\":\"Miguel A Cortel-LeBlanc, Karen Lemay, Sue Woods, Francis Bakewell, Richard Liu, Gary Garber\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-023-00522-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The medico-legal risk associated with application of medical directives in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe and analyze factors associated with medico-legal risk in cases involving medical directives in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a descriptive analysis of closed medico-legal cases [hospital complaints, regulatory authority (i.e., College) complaints, and civil legal actions] involving emergency physicians in Canadian EDs involving medical directives (alternate terms including \\\"standing order\\\", \\\"nursing initiated\\\", \\\"nurse initiated\\\", \\\"nursing order\\\", \\\"triage initiated\\\", \\\"triage ordered\\\", \\\"directive\\\", \\\"ED protocol\\\", and \\\"ED's protocol\\\"). We used data from closed cases involving the Canadian Medical Protective Association from January 2016 until December 2021. We abstracted descriptive factors of the cases and used a framework for contributing factors classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2016 until 2021, 43,332 cases were closed and 1957 involved emergency physicians for which there was medico-legal information available for analysis. In all, 28 involved emergency physicians and medical directives. Situational awareness, team communication, and issues with clinical decision-making were the most important factors contributing to harm and medico-legal risk. Peer experts were critical of physicians not reviewing all results available for patients when initiated through a directive, misinterpreting test results, a less than thorough initial assessment, and of failing to reassess patients or re-order investigations when indicated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the medico-legal risk exposure from the use of medical directives in the ED is low. Emergency departments may consider implementing systems to support adherence to medical directive policies, ensure physicians are alerted when medical directives are completed in a timely fashion, and leverage tools to notify the healthcare team when results have not been reviewed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 7\",\"pages\":\"589-597\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00522-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00522-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Medico-legal risk and use of medical directives in the emergency department.
Purpose: The medico-legal risk associated with application of medical directives in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe and analyze factors associated with medico-legal risk in cases involving medical directives in the ED.
Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of closed medico-legal cases [hospital complaints, regulatory authority (i.e., College) complaints, and civil legal actions] involving emergency physicians in Canadian EDs involving medical directives (alternate terms including "standing order", "nursing initiated", "nurse initiated", "nursing order", "triage initiated", "triage ordered", "directive", "ED protocol", and "ED's protocol"). We used data from closed cases involving the Canadian Medical Protective Association from January 2016 until December 2021. We abstracted descriptive factors of the cases and used a framework for contributing factors classification.
Results: From 2016 until 2021, 43,332 cases were closed and 1957 involved emergency physicians for which there was medico-legal information available for analysis. In all, 28 involved emergency physicians and medical directives. Situational awareness, team communication, and issues with clinical decision-making were the most important factors contributing to harm and medico-legal risk. Peer experts were critical of physicians not reviewing all results available for patients when initiated through a directive, misinterpreting test results, a less than thorough initial assessment, and of failing to reassess patients or re-order investigations when indicated.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the medico-legal risk exposure from the use of medical directives in the ED is low. Emergency departments may consider implementing systems to support adherence to medical directive policies, ensure physicians are alerted when medical directives are completed in a timely fashion, and leverage tools to notify the healthcare team when results have not been reviewed.
期刊介绍:
CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.