Superstitions of composure: the Ayn Rand cult and the pop-psychology of self-esteem.

Ayn Rand is known as an advocate of rugged individualism and unregulated capitalism, which has led to a scholarly focus on her influence on neoliberal and right-wing politics. This article focuses on the psychologically unrealistic conceptualisation of self-esteem in Rand's ethics, which arguably prevails in today's self-help culture. Rand endorsed Nathaniel Branden, her acolyte and lover, as official therapist for her circle. In this role, he promoted the positive effects of living according to Randian principles on mental health. Rand's so-called objectivism therefore provides not only a questionable philosophical framework for neoliberal politics but also, and perhaps predominantly for its followers, a set of guidelines for the project of self-optimisation. The fact that Rand's ideal of radical self-sufficiency is ultimately psychologically unliveable makes its use in applied psychotherapy ineffective and harmful. The article offers a cultural-historical case study about the ideological entanglements of philosophy and pop-psychological concepts and of clinical malpractice.

Medical malpractice and epidural hematomas: a retrospective analysis of 101 cases in the United States.

Background: Neurosurgeons face particularly high rates of litigation compared to physicians in other fields. Malpractice claims are commonly seen after mismanagement of life-threatening medical emergencies, such as epidural haematomas. Due to the lack of legal analysis pertaining to this condition, the aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with litigation in cases relating to the diagnosis and treatment of epidural haematomas. Materials and methods: Westlaw Edge, an online database, was used to analyze malpractice cases related to epidural haematomas between 1986 and 2022. Information regarding plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, trial outcomes, and payouts for verdicts and settlements were recorded. Comparative analysis between cases that returned a jury verdict in favour of the plaintiff versus defendant was completed. Results: A total of 101 cases were included in the analysis. Failure to diagnose was the most common reason for litigation (n = 64, 63.4%), followed by negligent care resulting in an epidural haematoma (n = 44, 43.6%). Spine surgery (n = 29, 28.7%), trauma (n = 28, 27.7%), and epidural injection/catheter/electrode placement (n = 21, 20.8%) were the primary causes of haematomas. Neurosurgeons (n = 18, 17.8%) and anesthesiologists (n = 17, 16.8%) were the two most common physician specialties cited as defendants. Most cases resulted in a jury verdict in favour of the defense (n = 54, 53.5%). For cases ending in plaintiff verdicts, the average payout was $3 621 590.45, while the average payment for settlements was $2 432 272.73. Conclusion: Failure to diagnose epidural haematomas is the most common reason for malpractice litigation, with neurosurgeons and anesthesiologists being the most common physician specialties to be named as defendants. More than half of all cases returned a jury verdict in favour of the defense and, on average, settlements proved to be more cost-effective than plaintiff verdicts.

Factors affecting the choice of medical specialties in Turkiye: an analysis based on cross-sectional survey of medical graduates.

BACKGROUND: Modern healthcare systems require the right mix of medical specialties for effective provision of high-quality services. Despite increased availability of general physicians and specialists, Türkiye lags behind high-income countries in terms of availability of specialists. The purpose of the study is to identify several specific factors that affect the choice of medical specialization. METHODS: All 350 medical school graduates in a specialty examination preparation bootcamp were requested to participate in the survey and 333 completed the self-administered questionnaire. The survey asked questions about factors affecting choice of medical specialty by medical graduates. RESULTS: The empirical results indicate that surgical specialties, compared to other broad medical specializations, are selected because of its higher income-earning potential and social prestige. The likelihood of selecting surgical specialties is negatively affected by rigorousness of the training program, high work-load, risk of malpractice lawsuits and risk of workplace violence. Male participants were 2.8 times more likely to select surgery specialty compared to basic medical science. Basic medical science areas were selected at a higher rate by female graduates and graduates with high level of academic performance in medical schools. CONCLUSIONS: It is critically important to improve trust and inter-personal communications between the patients and physicians in all specialties to lower the likelihood of malpractice lawsuits and workplace violence. Policy-makers may adopt policies to affect income earning potential and social prestige of targeted specializations to improve their supply.

Malpractice Claims Following Major Liver and Pancreatic Surgeries: What Can we Learn?

INTRODUCTION: General surgery is a highly litigious specialty. Lawsuits can be a source of emotional distress and burnout for surgeons. Major hepatic and pancreatic surgeries are technically challenging general surgical oncology procedures associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. It is unclear whether these operations are associated with an increased risk of lawsuits. The objective of the present study was to summarize the medical malpractice claims surrounding pancreatic and hepatic surgeries from publicly available court records. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was searched and analyzed for relevant malpractice claims from the last two decades. RESULTS: Of 165 search results, 30 (18.2%) cases were eligible for inclusion. Appellant cases comprised 53.3% of them. Half involved a patient death. Including co-defendants, a majority (n = 21, 70%) named surgeons as defendants, whereas several claims (n = 13, 43%) also named non-surgeons. The most common cause of alleged malpractice was a delay in diagnosis (n = 12, 40%). In eight of these, surgery could not be performed. The second most common were claims alleging the follow-up surgery was due to negligence (n = 6). Collectively, 20 claims were found in favor of the defendant. Seven verdicts (23.3%) returned in favor of the plaintiff, two of which resulted in monetary awards (totaling $1,608,325 and $424,933.85). Three cases went to trial or delayed motion for summary judgment. There were no settlements. CONCLUSIONS: A defendant verdict was reached in two-thirds of malpractice cases involving major hepatic or pancreatic surgery. A delay in diagnosis was the most cited claim in hepatopancreaticobiliary lawsuits, and defendants may often practice in nonsurgical specialties. While rulings favoring plaintiffs are less frequent, the payouts may be substantial.

Reasons for malpractice claims after primary total hip arthroplasty in France: insurance data from 240 claims from 2014 to 2017.

INTRODUCTION: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most frequent orthopedic surgery procedures, and orthopedic surgeons are among the most frequently accused of malpractice by their patients. Identifying the main reasons for malpractice claims after THA is a prior condition to reducing their frequency. The quality of the preoperative risk information given to the patient by the surgeon is crucial for these purposes. Data specific to THA are sparse in France, and we therefore conducted a retrospective study 1) to determine whether the outcome of medico-legal expert appraisal correlated with the quality and traceability of preoperative information, and 2) to identify the most frequent grounds for complaint after primary THA. HYPOTHESIS: The quality of patient information partly determines expert appraisal. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted based on data from the Branchet medical professional insurance agency for malpractice claims following THA over the period 2014-2017, with 240 complete files, for 125 women and 115 men. Data comprised: type of procedure, main grounds of complaint (complications), positive or negative expert appraisal, quality of preoperative patient information, amounts of compensation accorded and fees paid, and the practitioner's liability. We assessed correlations between information quality and liability. RESULTS: Surgical site infection and neurologic deficit were the two main grounds for malpractice claims. In the 240 files, cases for 106 operations (44.2%) were submitted to arbitration, 95 (39.6%) were brought to court, and 39 (16.2%) were settled out of court. The practitioner was held at least partly liable in 40 files (16.7%). Information to the patient was deemed imperfect or poor for 119 files (49.6%) and good in 121 (50.4%). Mean compensation was euro 30,940 (range, euro 0 to euro 198,100). In 27 of the 40 cases of liability (67.5%), the information to the patient was deemed imperfect or poor. Twenty-six of the 40 cases (65%) were settled out of court. In case of poor information, there was a significant risk for the practitioner to be held liable: 7.5% vs 25% (p=0.003). DISCUSSION: The present study listed the main complications underlying malpractice claims after THA: infection, neurologic complications, and limb-length discrepancy. This should enable practitioners to improve patient information so as to reduce the rate of malpractice claims or at least decrease the practitioner's liability, as the study found a correlation between information quality and expert appraisal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study.

You've Been Served, Now What? Malpractice tips and prevention for the acute care surgeon.

Trauma and acute care surgeons commonly perform high acuity and emergent interventions on critically ill or injured patients. This often entails making life or death decisions rapidly and with incomplete and imperfect information, and in patients who may have a variety of comorbidities that contribute to the risk of adverse outcomes. In cases where there are real or perceived breaches of care, a medical malpractice claim may result. In the USA, approximately one-third to one-half of all physicians will be named in medical litigation at least once in their career. Among the various specialties, surgery remains among the highest risk for malpractice litigation, at an average of 10.6 defendants per 100 surgeons. These events can be extremely stressful, demoralizing, or even devastating to the career and well-being of the involved physicians. This can be made better or worse by the individual response and actions of the surgeon on notification of a real or potential claim, and the primary goal of this review is to highlight these key areas and optimal strategies in malpractice scenarios. This includes strategies to manage the initial receipt of a malpractice claim, subsequent courses of action, and advice for incorporating preventive measures into everyday practice.

A 23-Year Analysis of the Litigation in Orthopaedic Elbow Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The reasons for malpractice litigation in elbow surgery are not well understood. The aim of this study is to report the most frequently litigated surgeries of the elbow and analyze the reasons for litigation and case outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Westlaw legal database was performed, and all federal and state jurisdiction litigation cases involving the elbow from 2000-2023 were queried. Cases were excluded if they did not involve an orthopedic surgeon, nor primary elbow injury or procedure. Cases were reviewed for demographic information, surgical procedure based on reference CPT codes, complications, symptoms, and reasons for litigation. Quantitative information, including settlement and indemnity cost to the defendant orthopedic surgeon, was analyzed. Cases were sub-divided based on United States Census Bureau regions and states to assess regional frequency of litigation with ANOVA tests. RESULTS: There were 59 cases meeting inclusion criteria from 2000-2023.The most litigated cases involved were ulnar nerve transposition/release and open reduction and internal fixation of the proximal radius and/or ulna at the elbow. The most litigated complication was claimed nerve damage (46%) and permanent disability (27%). Of the total cases, the most frequently litigated symptoms were nerve damage (46%) and loss of function (37%), while the least frequent was postoperative stiffness (2%). The Pacific region demonstrated the highest litigation rate (20%), while the East South Central, Mountain, and New England regions had the lowest litigation rate (3% each). A favorable verdict was given to the defendant orthopedic surgeon in 59% of the cases. The average loss incurred through settlement was $245,590, while the average indemnity paid through verdict was $523,334. CONCLUSION: Operative fixation of the proximal ulna/radius and ulnar nerve release/transposition are the most litigated procedures of the elbow. Litigation is most associated with nerve injury. Across Census Bureau regions, there is no significant difference in monetary cost incurred through settlements and verdict losses. Although a majority of litigated cases are won by the defending orthopedic surgeon, thorough informed consent and perioperative expectation management may mitigate litigation risk.

Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDF) are among the most common cervical spine operations, with over 137,000 surgeries performed annually. Understanding reasons underlying malpractice pertaining to ACDF may inform physicians of practices to improve delivery of patient care and mitigate malpractice. The aim of our study was to analyze the causes and outcomes for lawsuits pertaining to ACDF. Methods: The Westlaw Edge and Verdict Search databases were queried for malpractice claims utilizing the keywords "anterior cervical discectomy and fusion" and "ACDF". Inclusion criteria was based on relevance of case grievance(s) to ACDF. Data collected included date of case hearing, plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, monetary award, and sustained injuries. Results: Fifty cases were included in this study after excluding 1933 cases. Of the 50 cases, 34 (68%) resulted in a defendant outcome, 8 (16%) resulted in a plaintiff outcome, and 8 (16%) resulted in settlement. Plaintiff verdicts resulted in an average monetary payment of $9.70 million, while settlements resulted in an average payment of $2.06 million. Reasons for litigation were divided into 10 categories, most commonly improper postoperative management (20%), hardware failure (18%), intraoperative error (14%), off-label use of implants (14%), and insufficient informed consent (12%). Conclusions: Malpractice claims due to ACDF are associated with higher frequencies of plaintiff verdicts and higher monetary costs compared to other spinal surgery procedures. There does not appear to be supporting evidence that spinal cord neuromonitoring is mandatory for ACDF procedures from a medicolegal standpoint.

Medicolegal aspects of documentation and the electronic health record / Aspectos medicolegales de la documentación y la historia clínica electrónica

Introduction: The busiest times in the hospital are often met by the greatest challenges in complete and comprehensive documentation of the patient care event. The near complete transition to the Electronic Health Record (EHR) was to be the solution to a host of provider documentation concerns. It is clear the EHR provides reliability, reproducibility, integration, evidence based decision-making, multidisciplinary contribution across the entire healthcare spectrum.Methods: The use of a consensus of expert opinion supplemented by focused literature review allows a balanced evidence based presentation of data. Results: Documentation is not a perfect tool however, as issues with efficiency, reliability, use of shortcut maneuvers and potential for increased medico-legal risk have been raised. The solution is attention to documentation detail, and creation of systems that facilitate excellence. The focus on electronic documentation systems should include continual evaluation, ongoing improvement, involvement of a multidisciplinary patient care team and vendor receptiveness to in EHR development and operations. Conclusion: The most effective use of the EHR as a risk management tool requires documentation knowledge, targeted analysis, product improvement and co-development of clinical-commercial resource.(AU)

Introducción: Los momentos de mayor actividad en el hospital a menudo se enfrentan con los mayores desafíos en cuanto a la documentación completa y exhaustiva del evento de atención al paciente. La transición casi completa a la historia clínica electrónica (HCE) iba a ser la solución a una serie de preocupaciones sobre la documentación de los proveedores. Está claro que la HCE proporciona confiabilidad, reproducibilidad, integración, toma de decisiones basada en la evidencia y contribución multidisciplinaria en todo el espectro de la atención médica.Métodos: El uso de un consenso de opinión de expertos complementado con una revisión de la literatura enfocada permite una presentación equilibrada de los datos basada en la evidencia.Resultados: La documentación no es una herramienta perfecta, ya que se han planteado problemas de eficiencia, confiabilidad, uso de maniobras abreviadas y la posibilidad de un mayor riesgo medicolegal. La solución es la atención al detalle de la documentación y la creación de sistemas que faciliten la excelencia. El enfoque en los sistemas de documentación electrónica debe incluir evaluación continua, mejora continua, participación de un equipo multidisciplinario de atención al paciente y receptividad de los proveedores en el desarrollo y las operaciones de la HCE. Conclusión: El uso más eficaz de la HCE como herramienta de gestión de riesgos requiere conocimiento de la documentación, análisis específicos, mejora del producto y desarrollo conjunto de recursos clínico-comerciales.(AU)

Plausible Mechanisms of Causation of Immediate Stroke by Cervical Spine Manipulation: A Narrative Review.

It has been proposed that cervical spine manipulation (CSM) can cause dissection in healthy cervical arteries, with resultant immediate stroke. However, research does not support a causal association between CSM and cervical artery dissection (CAD) in healthy cervical arteries. The objective of this study was to review the literature to identify plausible mechanisms of causation of immediate stroke by CSM. Immediate stroke is defined as a stroke occurring within seconds or minutes of CSM. Our review found plausible thromboembolic and thrombotic mechanisms of causation of immediate stroke by CSM in the literature. The common premise of these mechanisms is CAD being present before CSM, not occurring as a result of CSM. These mechanisms of causation have clinical and medicolegal implications for physicians performing CSM.

Patients' Suits Against Psychiatrists for Not Preventing the Patients' Criminal Acts.

Patients who allege negligent treatment by their psychiatrists can sue to be compensated for the harms they experience. But what if the harms result from a criminal act committed by the patient that the patient claims the psychiatrist should have prevented? A long-standing common law rule bars plaintiffs from being compensated for harms caused by their own wrongdoing. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently considered the scope of this rule in the case of a psychiatric patient convicted of murder. Even when the rule is upheld, various exceptions may exist, and there is pressure to do away with an absolute bar on recovery of damages.

Medicolegal aspects of documentation and the electronic health record.

INTRODUCTION: The busiest times in the hospital are often met by the greatest challenges in complete and comprehensive documentation of the patient care event. The near complete transition to the Electronic Health Record (EHR) was to be the solution to a host of provider documentation concerns. It is clear the EHR provides reliability, reproducibility, integration, evidence based decision-making, multidisciplinary contribution across the entire healthcare spectrum. METHODS: The use of a consensus of expert opinion supplemented by focused literature review allows a balanced evidence based presentation of data. RESULTS: Documentation is not a perfect tool however, as issues with efficiency, reliability, use of shortcut maneuvers and potential for increased medico-legal risk have been raised. The solution is attention to documentation detail, and creation of systems that facilitate excellence. The focus on electronic documentation systems should include continual evaluation, ongoing improvement, involvement of a multidisciplinary patient care team and vendor receptiveness to in EHR development and operations. CONCLUSION: The most effective use of the EHR as a risk management tool requires documentation knowledge, targeted analysis, product improvement and co-development of clinical-commercial resource.

Analysis of Closed Claims Among All Medical Specialties: Importance of Communication and Other Non-Clinical Contributing Factors.

Objective: Medical malpractice claims represent patient dissatisfaction of care delivered by their healthcare provider. Evaluation of contributing factors (CFs) associated with claims provides important information to optimize the patient-provider relationship. Study Design: A total of 21,101 closed claims with 54,479 CFs (2.2 contributing factors per claim) from a large medical professional liability coverage provider were analyzed from 2010 to 2019. Results: Four clinical CFs (technical performance, management of therapy, patient assessment, and patient factors) and four nonclinical CFs (communication between providers and patient, communication among providers, failure or delay in obtaining a consult, and insufficient documentation) were identified >1,500 times. Nonclinical CFs increased as a percentage from 50% in the first part of the study period to 54% in the second part of the study period (p < 0.01), and were more frequent in cases associated with indemnity when compared to clinical CFs (Nonclinical: 57% vs 43%; p < 0.001). Poor communication as a CF increased steadily during the study period (3-year average; 2010-2012: 777 CF/year vs 2017-2019: 1207 CF/year; p < 0.001). In claims associated with high severity injury, poor communication among providers was more significant than poor communication between the provider and patient (63% vs 29%; p < 0.001), mainly due to failure to convey the severity of the patient's condition. For non-surgical specialties except psychiatry, communication was the highest CF and the second or third CF for psychiatry or surgical specialties. Discussion: Clinical and nonclinical CFs are equally important for malpractice claims. Communications issues are particularly important regardless of specialty. While focusing on clinical quality is important, implementing strategies that account for nonclinical issues, with a particular focus on communication, would have significant benefits particularly in an environment of increased consolidation of healthcare delivery systems.

Medico-Legal Implications of Video Recordings of Clinic Visits in Malpractice Claims Against Medical Providers.

OBJECTIVE: Although audio-video recordings of clinic visits improve patient satisfaction and recall, the associated presumed risk of increased malpractice claims limits their use. In this study, we identified whether video recording clinic visits was associated with increases in professional liability claims. METHODS: From 2015 to 2017, the institution's loss run was analyzed, and the rates of medical malpractice claims per physician-year were compared between physicians who used video recordings of clinic visits (V-RoCs) and those who did not. The term "users" was applied to all physicians whose mean percentage of patient visits with video recording was greater than the mean percentage for the practice overall. RESULTS: Over three years, 15,254 patients used V-RoCs. The use of video recordings for clinic visits increased at a rate of 23% per year. No association was found between video recordings and increased malpractice claims. The rate of all claims between users and nonusers did not differ significantly (P=0.66). Of seven paid claims or lawsuits from 2000 to 2017, none were against physicians who used video recordings. CONCLUSION: Video recording of patient-physician encounters was not associated with an increase in malpractice lawsuits. According to federal law, a patient can legally record a clinic encounter without physician consent, which has many ethical implications. Formalizing the recording process is beneficial for both parties and allows the resource to be used to its maximum potential.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Litigation in Organ Transplantation for Allegations of Insufficient Policy Coverage, Discrimination and Malpractice.

Introduction: Transplantation is a field with unique medical and administrative challenges that involve an equally diverse array of stakeholders. Expectantly, the litigation stemming from this field should be similarly nuanced. There is a paucity of comprehensive reviews characterizing this medicolegal landscape. Design: The Caselaw Access Project Database was used to collect official court briefs of 2053 lawsuits related to kidney, liver, heart, lung, and pancreas transplantation. A thematic analysis was undertaken to characterize grounds for litigation, defendant type, and outcomes. Cases were grouped into policy, discrimination, poor or unsuccessful outcome, or other categories. Results: One hundred sixty-four court cases were included for analysis. Cases involving disputes over policy coverage were the most common across all organ types (N = 55, 33.5%). This was followed by poor outcomes (N = 51, 31.1%), allegations of discrimination against prison systems and employers (N = 37, 22.6%) and other (N = 21, 12.8%). Defendants involved in discrimination trials won with the greatest frequency (N = 29, 90.62%). Defendants implicated in policy suits won 65.3% (N = 32), poor outcomes 62.2% (N = 28), and other 70% (N = 14). Of the 51 cases involving poor outcomes, plaintiffs indicated lack of informed consent in 23 (45.1%). Conclusion: Reconsidering the informed consent process may be a viable means of mitigating future legal action. Most discrimination suits favoring defendants suggested previous concerns of structural injustices in transplantation may not be founded. The prevalence of policy-related cases could be an indication of financial burden on patients. Future work and advocacy will need to substantiate these concerns and address change where legal recourse falls short.

Disclosure following a medical error: lessons learned from a national initiative of workshops with patients, healthcare teams, and executives.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increase in disclosures of medical errors, transparency remains a challenge. Recognized barriers include shame, fear of litigation, disciplinary actions, and loss of patient trust. In 2018, the Israeli Ministry of Health initiated a series of workshops about disclosure of medical errors. The workshops involved medical center executives, healthcare providers, patients, and family members of patients who had previously been harmed by a medical error. This study presents the lessons learned about perceived challenges in disclosure of errors in 15 such workshops. METHODS: Data collection included participant observations in 15 workshops, full audio recordings of all of the workshops, and documentation of detailed field notes. Analysis was performed under thematic analysis guidelines. RESULTS: We identified four main themes: "Providers agree on the value of disclosure of a medical error to the patient"; "Emotional challenges of disclosure of medical error to patients"; "The medico-legal discourse challenges transparency"; and "Providers and patients call for a change in the culture regarding disclosure of medical errors". Participant observations indicated that the presence of a patient who had experienced a tragedy in another hospital, and who was willing to share it created an intimate atmosphere that enabled an open conversation between parties. CONCLUSION: The study shows the moral, human, and educational values of open discourse in a protective setting after the occurrence of a medical error. We believe that workshops like these may help foster a culture of institutional disclosure following medical errors. We recommend that the Ministry of Health extend such workshops to all healthcare facilities, establish guidelines and mandate training for skills in disclosure for all providers.

Never events in plastic surgery: An analysis of surgical burns and medical malpractice litigation.

INTRODUCTION: Burns and fires in the operating room are a known risk and their prevention has contributed to many additional safety measures. Despite these safeguards, burn injuries contribute significantly to the medical malpractice landscape. The aim of the present study is to analyze malpractice litigation related to burn and fire injuries in plastic and reconstructive surgery, identify mechanisms of injury, and develop strategies for prevention. METHODS: The Westlaw and LexisNexis databases were queried for jury verdicts and settlements in malpractice lawsuits related to burn and fire injuries that occurred during plastic surgery procedures. The Boolean terms included "burn & injury & plastic", "fire & injury & "plastic surg!"" in Westlaw, and "burn & injury & "plastic surg!"", "fire & injury & "plastic surg!"" in LexisNexis. RESULTS: A total of 46 cases met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overheated surgical instruments and cautery devices were the most common mechanisms for litigation. Plastic surgeons were defendants in 40 (87%) cases. Of the included cases, 43% were ruled in favor of the defendant, while 33% were ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Mishandling of cautery devices 6 (13%), heated surgical instruments 6 (13%), and topical acids 2 (4%) were the most common types of errors encountered. CONCLUSION: Never events causing burn injury in plastic and reconstructive surgery are ultimately caused by human error or neglect. The misuse of overheated surgical instruments and cauterizing devices should be the focus for improving patient safety and reducing the risk of medical malpractice. Forcing functions and additional safeguards should be considered to minimize the risk of costly litigation and unnecessary severe harm to patients.

Death by accidental intravenous administration of gasoline.

Herein, we present the case of accidental intravenous injection of gasoline in a 62-year-old male who was admitted to a dialysis center for his regular hemodialysis. Due to previous contact with another SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) positive patient, the hemodialysis was conducted in an isolated room. At the end of the procedure, the nurse, wearing all necessary personal protective equipment (PPE), in the intent to clean the dialysis catheter, applied medical gasoline, instead of 0.9% sodium chloride, intravenously to the patient. Soon afterwards, the patient's clinical condition deteriorated, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was started. Despite the immediate reaction of the medical staff, after two successful cardiopulmonary reanimation and necessary intensive care measures, the patient suffered respiratory, metabolic, and lactic acidosis, hypotension, and tachyarrhythmia and ultimately died 7 h after the incident. The autopsy was conducted under the order of the district attorney. Main autopsy findings were marked congestion; right pleural and pericardial effusion; brain and lung edema; enlarged heart with left ventricle thickening and mild perivascular fibrosis; nephrosclerosis; tubular thyroidization; and interstitial fibrosis with inflammation. Gasoline presence was indisputably proven by conducted toxicology analysis in lung, bile, and brain samples. Traces of gasoline could be noted in the patient's blood sample in comparison to the blood that did not contain gasoline, but it was not possible to confidently claim that gasoline was present in the blood. Based on relevant findings, we concluded that the death of the patient was violent and that the cause of death was acute intoxication by gasoline.

Medical malpractice and cerebrospinal fluid shunts: An analysis of 36 cases.

Many physicians, particularly neurosurgeons, face malpractice claims during their career. The aim of this paper is to identify which factors increase the risk of litigation and influence legal outcomes relating to cerebrospinal fluid shunt management. Westlaw, an online legal database, was used to identify all medico-legal cases pertaining to cerebrospinal fluid shunts. Information regarding plaintiff demographics, defendant specialties, reasons for litigation, and trial outcomes were analysed. Thirty-six cases met criteria for inclusion. Most cases returned a defence verdict (44.4%), with delayed treatment or failure to appropriately treat patients with shunts the most common reason for litigation (66.7%). The average plaintiff verdict payout was $4,888,136.75 and average settlement $1,362,307.69. Delay or failure to treat resulted in the largest average payouts for plaintiff verdicts and settlements ($5,329,299.14 and $1,531,500.00, respectively).

Is physical restraint unethical and illegal?: a qualitative analysis of Korean written judgments.

BACKGROUND: Physical restraint (PR) is used to ensure the safety of care recipients. However, this causes an ethical dilemma between the autonomy and dignity of the recipients and the provision of effective treatment by health workers. This study aimed to analyze legal and ethical situations related to the use of PR using written judgments. METHODS: This study uses a qualitative retrospective design. Qualitative content analysis was performed on South Korean written judgments. A total of 38 cases from 2015 to 2021 were categorized. The types of court decisions and ethical dilemma situations were examined according to the four principles of bioethics, and the courts' judgments were compared. RESULTS: Written judgments related to PR were classified into three types according to the appropriateness of PR use, the presence or absence of duty of care, and legal negligence. Ethical dilemmas were categorized into three situations depending on whether the four principles of bioethics were followed. The courts' decisions regarding the ethical dilemmas differed depending on the situational factors before and after the use of PR and the conflicting conditions of the ethical principles. CONCLUSIONS: Health workers should consider legal and ethical requirements when determining whether to use PR to provide the care recipient with the necessary treatment.