Procedural Sedation by Non-Anesthesiologists: A Review of Malpractice Litigation.

Introduction: Medical professionals other than anesthesiologists at times administer sedation for procedures. The aim of this study is to identify the adverse events, and their root causes, resulting in medical malpractice litigation in the United States related to procedural sedation administration by non-anesthesiologists.

Methods: Cases containing the phrase "conscious sedation" were identified using Anylaw, an online national legal database. Cases were excluded if the primary allegation was not malpractice related to conscious sedation or the listing was a duplicate.

Results: Of the 92 cases identified, 25 remained after application of exclusion criteria. The procedure type most commonly involved was dental (56%), followed by gastrointestinal (28%). The remaining procedure types were urology, electrophysiology, otolaryngology, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Discussion: By reviewing malpractice case narratives and outcomes, this study offers insight and opportunities for practice improvement among non-anesthesiologists providing conscious sedation for procedures.