Physician alert: the legal risks associated with 'on-call' duties in the USA.

On-call physicians encounter a diverse aggregate of interfaces with sundry persons concerning patient care that may surface potential legal peril. The duties and obligations of an on-call physician, who must act as a fiduciary to all patients, create a myriad of circumstances where there is a risk of falling prey to legal ambiguities. The understanding of the doctor-patient relationship, the obligations of physicians under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the meaning of medical informed consent and the elements of negligence will help physicians avoid the legal risk associated with the various encounters of being on call. After introducing the legal concepts, we will explore the interactions that may put physicians at legal risk and outline how to mitigate that risk. Being on call is time consuming and arduous. While on call, physicians have a duty to act morally and ethically in the best interest of the patients.

Cross-sectional survey of Good Samaritan behaviour by physicians in North Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the responses of physicians to providing emergency medical assistance outside of routine clinical care. We assessed the percentage who reported previous Good Samaritan behaviour, their responses to hypothetical situations, their comfort providing specific interventions and the most likely reason they would not intervene. SETTING: Physicians residing in North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 1000 licensed physicians. INTERVENTION: Mailed survey. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study conducted May 2015 to September 2015. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Willingness of physicians to act as Good Samaritans as determined by the last opportunity to intervene in an out-of-office emergency. RESULTS: The adjusted response rate was 26.1% (253/970 delivered). 4 out of 5 physicians reported previous opportunities to act as Good Samaritans. Approximately, 93% reported acting as a Good Samaritan during their last opportunity. There were no differences in this outcome between sexes, practice setting, specialty type or experience level. Doctors with greater perceived knowledge of Good Samaritan law were more likely to have intervened during a recent opportunity (p=0.02). The most commonly cited reason for potentially not intervening was that another health provider had taken charge. CONCLUSIONS: We found the frequency of Good Samaritan behaviour among physicians to be much higher than reported in previous studies. Greater helping behaviour was exhibited by those who expressed more familiarity with Good Samaritan law. These findings suggest that physicians may respond to legal protections.

Of duty hour violations and shift work: changing the educational paradigm.

BACKGROUND: Successful surgical education balances learning opportunities with Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hour requirements. We instituted a night shift system and hypothesized that implementation would decrease duty hour violations while maintaining quality education. METHODS: A system of alternating teams working 12-hour shifts was instituted and was assessed via an electronic survey distributed at 2, 6, and 12 months after implementation. Resident duty hour violations and resident case volume were evaluated for 1 year before and 2 years after implementation of the night shift system. RESULTS: Survey data revealed a decrease in the perception that residents had problems meeting duty hour restrictions from 44% to 14% at 12 months (P = .012). Total violations increased 26% in the 1st year, subsequently decreasing by 62%, with shift length violations decreasing by 90%. Resident availability for didactics was improved, and average operative cases per academic year increased by 65%. CONCLUSIONS: Night shift systems are feasible and help meet duty hour requirements. Our program decreased violations while increasing operative volume and didactic time.