Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Ophthalmology ; 127(7): 852-858, 2020 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32037017

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the types of anesthesia-related closed claims and their contributing factors, using data from the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company (OMIC). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of preexisting data. PARTICIPANTS: Plaintiffs who filed a professional liability claim or suit (written demand for money) against OMIC-insured ophthalmologists, ophthalmic practices, or surgicenters in which the surgical case occurred. METHODS: Plaintiff claims were collected from the OMIC database from 2008 to 2018 using search queries for terms associated with known complications of ophthalmic anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and types of anesthesia-related injuries and claims, who administered the anesthesia, the outcomes of the claim or suit, cost to defend, and payments made to plaintiffs. RESULTS: Sixty-three anesthesia-related claims or suits were filed by 50 plaintiffs. Anesthesia-related injuries included globe perforation (n = 17), death (n = 13), retrobulbar hemorrhage (n = 7), optic nerve damage (n = 4), vascular occlusions (n = 2), pain (n = 2), eye or head movement resulting in injury (n = 2), and 1 case each for numbness, diplopia, and tooth loss during intubation. All but 1 patient who died had preexisting, significant comorbidities. Two deaths were related to brainstem anesthesia. Regarding the type of anesthesia in the closed claims, retrobulbar and peribulbar anesthesia were the most common types (n = 16 each), followed by local infiltration around the lids and facial nerve (n = 6), topical anesthesia (n = 5), and general anesthesia (n = 5). In 2 cases, the exact type of anesthesia was unknown but not general. The 5 topical with sedation anesthesia-related claims were due to inadequate pain control (n = 2), ocular movement resulting in capsular rupture (n = 2), or death (n = 1) allegedly related to excessive or inadequate monitoring of sedation. There were 5 claims related to general anesthesia including 4 deaths and 1 tooth loss during intubation. Sedation was alleged to be a factor in 5 cases resulting in death. Anticoagulants were a factor in 3 retrobulbar hemorrhage cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although claims and suits were infrequent given the large number of insured ophthalmologists and the large number of surgical cases requiring various types of anesthesia performed over the 10.5-year study period, severe injuries can occur.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia Local/efectos adversos , Oftalmopatías/etiología , Seguro de Responsabilidad Civil/estadística & datos numéricos , Responsabilidad Legal/economía , Mala Praxis/economía , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anestesia Local/economía , Niño , Preescolar , Bases de Datos Factuales , Oftalmopatías/economía , Femenino , Humanos , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros , Masculino , Massachusetts , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Adulto Joven
2.
Anesthesiology ; 124(6): 1384-93, 2016 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27054366

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Due to an increase in implantable device-related anesthesia pain medicine claims, the authors investigated anesthesia liability associated with these devices. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, the authors identified 148 pain medicine device claims from 1990 or later in the Anesthesia Closed Claims Project Database. Device-related damaging events included medication administration events, infections, hematomas, retained catheter fragments, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, cord or cauda equina trauma, device placed at wrong level, stimulator incorrectly programmed, delay in recognition of granuloma formation, and other issues. RESULTS: The most common devices were implantable drug delivery systems (IDDS; 64%) and spinal cord stimulators (29%). Device-related care consisted of surgical device procedures (n = 107) and IDDS maintenance (n = 41). Severity of injury was greater in IDDS maintenance claims (56% death or severe permanent injury) than in surgical device procedures (26%, P < 0.001). Death and brain damage in IDDS maintenance claims resulted from medication administration errors (n = 13; 32%); spinal cord injury resulted from delayed recognition of granuloma formation (n = 9; 22%). The most common damaging events for surgical device procedures were infections, inadequate pain relief, cord trauma, retained catheter fragments, and subcutaneous hygroma. Care was more commonly assessed as less than appropriate (78%) and payments more common (63%) in IDDS maintenance than in surgical device procedure claims (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Half of IDDS maintenance claims were associated with death or permanent severe injury, most commonly from medication errors or failure to recognize progressive neurologic deterioration. Practitioners implanting or managing devices for chronic pain should exercise caution in these areas to minimize patient harm.


Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico/terapia , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/efectos adversos , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/instrumentación , Bombas de Infusión Implantables/efectos adversos , Seguro de Responsabilidad Civil/estadística & datos numéricos , Mala Praxis/estadística & datos numéricos , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/economía , Femenino , Humanos , Bombas de Infusión Implantables/economía , Bombas de Infusión Implantables/estadística & datos numéricos , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros/economía , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros/estadística & datos numéricos , Seguro de Responsabilidad Civil/economía , Masculino , Mala Praxis/economía , Persona de Mediana Edad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA