Review article: Patients who leave before care is completed: What does the legal duty to warn mean for emergency department clinicians?

Patients leave ED for a variety of reasons and at all stages of care. In Australian law, clinicians and health services owe a duty of care to people presenting to the ED for care, even if they have not yet entered a treatment space. There is also a positive duty to warn patients of material risks associated with their condition, proposed treatment(s), reasonable alternative treatment options and the likely effect of their healthcare decisions, including refusing treatment. This extends to a decision to leave the ED before care is completed. The form of that warning may vary based on what is known about the patient's condition and the associated risks at the time. Specific documentation of warnings given is essential.

End-of-life decision-making in the emergency department and intensive care unit: Health professionals' perspectives on and knowledge of the law in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate ED and intensive care unit healthcare professionals' perspectives and knowledge of the law that underpins end-of-life decision-making in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: An online survey with questions about perspectives, perceived, and actual, knowledge of the law was distributed by the professional organisations of medical practitioners, nurses and social workers who work in Queensland EDs and intensive care units. RESULTS: The survey responses of 126 healthcare professionals were included in the final analysis. Most respondents agreed that the law was relevant to end-of-life decision-making, but that clinician and family consensus mattered more than following the law. Generally, doctors' legal knowledge was higher than nurses'; however, there were significant gaps in the knowledge of all respondents about the operation of advance health directives in Queensland. CONCLUSIONS: The legal framework that supports end-of-life decision-making for adults who lack decision-making capacity has been in place for more than two decades. Despite frequently being involved in making or enacting these decisions, gaps in the legal knowledge of healthcare professionals who work in EDs and intensive care units in Queensland are evident. Further research to better understand how to improve knowledge and application of the law is warranted.

The 21st Century Cures Act and Emergency Medicine - Part 1: Digitally Sharing Notes and Results.

Among the provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act is the mandate for digital sharing of clinician notes and test results through the patient portal of the clinician's electronic health record system. Although there is considerable evidence of the benefit to clinic patients from open notes and minimal apparent additional burden to primary care clinicians, emergency department (ED) note sharing has not been studied. With easier access to notes and results, ED patients may have an enhanced understanding of their visit, findings, and clinician's medical decisionmaking, which may improve adherence to recommendations. Patients may also seek clarifications and request edits to their notes. EDs can develop workflows to address patient concerns without placing new undue burden on clinicians, helping to realize the benefits of sharing notes and test results digitally.

Coding of Sexual Assault by Emergency Physicians: A Nationally Representative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual assault is a public health problem that affects many Americans and has multiple long-lasting effects on victims. Medical evaluation after sexual assault frequently occurs in the emergency department, and documentation of the visit plays a significant role in decisions regarding prosecution and outcomes of legal cases against perpetrators. The American College of Emergency Physicians recommends coding such visits as sexual assault rather than adding modifiers such as "alleged." METHODS: This study reviews factors associated with coding of visits as sexual assault compared to suspected sexual assault using the 2016 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. RESULTS: Younger age, female gender, a larger number of procedure codes, urban hospital location, and lack of concurrent alcohol use are associated with coding for confirmed sexual assault. CONCLUSION: Implications of this coding are discussed.

[Liaison geriatrics with nursing homes in COVID time. A new coordination model arrived to stay]. / La Geriatría de Enlace con residencias en la época de la COVID-19. Un nuevo modelo de coordinación que ha llegado para quedarse.

Older people living in nursing homes fulfil the criteria to be considered as geriatric patients, but they often do not have met their health care needs. Current deficits appeared as a result of COVID-19 pandemic. The need to improve the coordination between hospitals and nursing homes emerged, and in Madrid it materialized with the implantation of Liaison Geriatrics teams or units at public hospitals. The Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología has defined the role of the geriatricians in the COVID-19 pandemic and they have given guidelines about prevention, early detection, isolation and sectorization, training, care homes classification, patient referral coordination, and the role of the different care settings, among others. These units and teams also must undertake other care activities that have a shortfall currently, like nursing homes-hospital coordination, geriatricians visits to the homes, telemedicine sessions, geriatric assessment in emergency rooms, and primary care and public health services coordination. This paper describes the concept of Liaison Geriatrics and its implementation at the Autonomous Community of Madrid hospitals as a result of COVID-19 pandemic. Activity data from a unit at a hospital with a huge number of nursing homes in its catchment area are reported. The objective is to understand the need of this activity in order to avoid the current fragmentation of care between hospitals and nursing homes. This activity should be consolidated in the future.

Vascular surgery-related violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

OBJECTIVE: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law established in 1986 to ensure that patients who present to an emergency department receive medical care regardless of means. Violations are reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and can result in significant financial penalties. Our objective was to assess all available EMTALA violations for vascular-related issues. METHODS: EMTALA violations in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly available hospital violations database from 2011 to 2018 were evaluated for vascular-related issues. Details recorded were case type, hospital type, hospital region, reasons for violation, disposition, and mortality. RESULTS: There were 7001 patients identified with any EMTALA violation and 98 (1.4%) were deemed vascular related. The majority (82.7%) of EMTALA violations occurred at urban/suburban hospitals. Based on the Association of American Medical Colleges United States region, vascular-related EMTALA violations occurred in the Northeast (7.1%), Southern (56.1%), Central (18.4%), and Western (18.4%) United States. Case types included cerebrovascular (28.6%), aortic related (22.4%; which consisted of ruptured aortic aneurysms [8.2%], aortic dissection [11.2%], and other aortic [3.1%]), vascular trauma (15.3%), venous-thromboembolic (15.3%), peripheral arterial disease (9.2%), dialysis access (5.1%), bowel ischemia (3.1%), and other (1%) cases. Patients were transferred to another facility in 41.8% of cases. The most common reasons for violation were specialty refusal or unavailability (30.6%), inappropriate documentation (29.6%), misdiagnosis (18.4%), poor communication (17.3%), inappropriate triage (13.3%), failure to obtain diagnostic laboratory tests or imaging (12.2%), and ancillary or nursing staff issues (7.1%). The overall mortality was 19.4% and 31.6% died during the index emergency department visit. Vascular conditions associated with death were venous thromboembolism (31.6%), ruptured aortic aneurysm (21.1%), aortic dissection (21.1%), other aortic causes (10.5%), vascular trauma (10.5%), and bowel ischemia (5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of vascular-related EMTALA violations was low, improvements in communication, awareness of vascular disease among staff, specialty staffing, and the development of referral networks and processes are needed to ensure that patients receive adequate care and that institutions are not placed at undue risk.

Regulatory Challenges to Emergency Medicine Procedural Sedation.

As currently written, national regulatory guidance on procedural sedation has elements that are contradictory, confusing, and out of date. As a result, hospital procedural sedation policies are often widely inconsistent between institutions despite similar settings and resources, putting emergency department (ED) patients at risk by denying them uniform access to safe, effective, and appropriate procedural sedation care. Many hospitals have chosen to take overly conservative stances with respect to regulatory compliance to minimize their perceived risk. Herein, we review and critique standards and policies from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, The Joint Commission, state nursing boards, the Food and Drug Administration, and others with respect to their effect on ED procedural sedation. Where appropriate, we recommend modifications of and enhancements to their guidance that would improve the access of ED patients to modern, safe, and effective procedural sedation care.

EMTALA: Testing the Good Faith Admission Requirement.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' March 13, 2020 decision in Williams v. Dimension Health Corporation reintroduced scrutiny on the lesser-known mandate of The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) concerning good faith admission to the hospital. EMTALA was enacted by Congress in 1986 to prevent patient dumping by prohibiting hospitals with emergency departments from refusing to provide emergency medical treatment to patients unable to pay for treatment, and prohibiting the transfer of those patients before their emergency medical conditions are stabilized. The reach of EMTALA ends when a patient is admitted and consequently becomes an inpatient, because then the hospital believes the patient would benefit from admission, and discharge and transfer would not occur as outlined in EMTALA. This paper examines the analysis of this mandate in Williams v. Dimension Health Corporation, and closely investigates one particular aspect of it: that admission must be made in good faith; otherwise, application of EMTALA's screening and stabilization requirements has not yet terminated, and hospitals can still be found culpable.