China's model to combat the COVID-19 epidemic: a public health emergency governance approach.

The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is of global health concern. It is a serious public health emergency for the entire world, threatening human life and public health security. To address the epidemic, it is necessary not only to take good prevention and treatment measures, but also to have effective and targeted public health emergency governance. That said, reports focusing on governance are scant. In this commentary, we summarize China's model to combat the COVID-19 epidemic from a public health emergency governance approach. Stemmed from goals and values, a number of mechanisms are put forward, which include: a whole-of-government response and accountability, setting up a multi-sectoral cooperation platform, swiftly scaling up epidemic emergency capacity, whole-of-society actions with engagement of social organizations, and engaging citizens in the epidemic prevention and control. As the epidemic continues to evolve, other countries might learn from China to build their own, context-specific models for better outcomes.

Confidentiality and Capacity.

This article focuses on confidentiality and capacity issues affecting patients receiving care in the emergency department. The patient-physician relationship begins with presumed confidentiality. The article also clarifies instances where a physician may be required to break confidentiality for the safety of patients or others. This article then discusses risk management issues relevant to determining a patient's capacity to accept or decline medical care in the emergency department setting. Situations pertaining to refusal of care and discharges against medical advice are examined in detail, and best practices for mitigating risk in informed consent and barriers to consent are reviewed.

High-risk Pediatric Emergencies.

More than half of pediatric malpractice cases arise from emergency departments, primarily due to missed or delayed diagnoses. All providers who take care of children in emergency departments should be aware of this risk and the most common diagnoses associated with medicolegal liability. This article focuses on diagnosis and management of high-risk diagnoses in pediatric patients presenting to emergency departments, including meningitis, pneumonia, appendicitis, testicular torsion, and fracture. It highlights challenges and pitfalls that may increase risk of liability. It concludes with a discussion on recognition and management of abuse in children, including when to report and decisions on disposition.

Surviving a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit.

Being named in a medical malpractice case is one of the most stressful events in a physician's career. This article reviews the legal system and the medical malpractice process. It details the steps a physician experiences during a medical malpractice case, from being served to the deposition and then to trial and appeals if the physician loses. This article also reviews necessary steps to take in order to proactively participate in one's own defense.

Emergency Physician Practice Changes After Being Named in a Malpractice Claim.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Malpractice fear is a commonly cited cause for defensive medicine, but it is unclear whether being named in a malpractice claim changes physician practice patterns. We study whether there are changes in commonly used measures of emergency physician practice after being named in a malpractice claim. METHODS: We performed a retrospective difference-in-differences study comparing practice patterns of emergency physicians named in a malpractice claim and unnamed matched controls working contemporaneously in the same emergency departments (EDs), using data from a national emergency medicine management group (59 EDs in 11 US states from 2010 to 2015). We studied aggregate measures of care intensity (hospital admission rate and relative value units/visit), studied care speed (relative value units/hour and discharged patients' length of stay), and assessed patient experience (monthly physician Press Ganey percentile rank). RESULTS: A total of 65 emergency physicians named in at least 1 malpractice claim and 140 matched controls met inclusion criteria. After the malpractice claim filing date, there were no significant changes in measures of care intensity or speed. However, named emergency physicians' patient experience scores improved immediately after the malpractice claim filing date and showed sustained improvements by 6.52 Press Ganey percentile ranks (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 12.38), with the increase most prominent among those involved in the 46 failure-to-diagnose claims (10.52; 95% confidence interval 3.72 to 17.32). CONCLUSION: We observed a temporal improvement in patient satisfaction scores for emergency physicians in this sample after their being named in a malpractice claim relative to matched controls. Measures of care intensity and speed did not significantly change.

Seguimos sin especialidad y sin interlocutor / Still with neither a specialization nor a spokesperson

No disponible

Emergency Department Procedural Sedation Practice Limitations: A Statewide California American College of Emergency Physicians Survey.

OBJECTIVES: We wanted to estimate the frequency and describe the nature of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation restrictions in the State of California. METHODS: We surveyed medical directors for all licensed EDs statewide regarding limitations on procedural sedation practice. Our primary outcome was the frequency of restrictions on procedural sedation, defined as an inability to administer moderate sedation, deep sedation, and typical ED sedative agents in accordance with American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) guidelines. Our secondary outcomes were the nature of these restrictions, who has imposed them, why they were imposed, and the perceived clinical impact. RESULTS: We obtained responses from 211 (64%) of the 328 EDs. Ninety-one (43%) reported conditional or total limitations on their ability to administer one or more of the following: moderate sedation, deep sedation, propofol, ketamine, or etomidate. Thirty-nine (18%) reported total restriction of at least one of these-most frequently a prohibition of deep sedation (18%). Local anesthesia directors were the most frequently cited creators and enforcers of these restrictions. Some respondents reported that, due to these restrictions, they used less effective sedatives, they performed procedures without sedation when sedation would have been preferred, and they observed inadequate sedation and pain control. CONCLUSIONS: In this statewide survey we found a substantial prevalence of practice limitations-mostly created by local anesthesia directors-that restrict the ability of emergency physicians to provide procedural sedation for their patients in accordance with ACEP guidelines. Deep sedation was prohibited in 18% of responding EDs. Our respondents describe adverse consequences to patient care.

Malpractice in Emergency Medicine-A Review of Risk and Mitigation Practices for the Emergency Medicine Provider.

BACKGROUND: Malpractice in emergency medicine is of high concern for medical providers, the fear of which continues to drive decision-making. The body of evidence evaluating risk specific to emergency physicians is disjointed, and thus it remains difficult to derive cohesive themes and strategies for risk minimization. OBJECTIVE: This review evaluates the state of malpractice in emergency medicine and summarizes a concise approach for the emergency physician to minimize risk. DISCUSSION: The environment of the emergency department (ED) represents moderate overall malpractice risk and yields a heavy burden in finance and time. Key areas of relatively high litigation occurrence include missed acute myocardial infarction, missed fractures/foreign bodies, abdominal pain/appendicitis, wounds, intracranial bleeding, aortic aneurysm, and pediatric meningitis. Mitigation of risk is best accomplished through constructive communication, intelligent documentation, utilization of clinical practice guidelines and generalizable diagnoses, careful management of discharge against medical advice, and establishing follow-up for diagnostic studies ordered while in the ED (especially x-ray studies). Communication breakdown seems to be more predictive of malpractice litigation than injury experienced. CONCLUSIONS: There are consistent diagnoses that are associated with increased litigation incidence. A combination of mitigation approaches may assist providers in mitigation of malpractice risk.

Provider and Practice Factors Associated With Emergency Physicians' Being Named in a Malpractice Claim.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine the association between emergency physician characteristics and practice factors with the risk of being named in a malpractice claim. METHODS: We used malpractice claims along with provider, operational, and jurisdictional data from a national emergency medicine group (87 emergency departments [EDs] in 15 states from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014) to assess the relationship between individual physician and practice variables and being named in a malpractice claim. Individual and practice factors included years in practice, emergency medicine board certification, visit admission rate, relative value units generated per hour, total patients treated as attending physician of record, working at multiple facilities, working primarily overnight shifts, patient experience data percentile, and state malpractice environment. We assessed the relationship between emergency physician and practice variables and malpractice claims, using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 9,477,150 ED visits involving 1,029 emergency physicians, there were 98 malpractice claims against 90 physicians (9%). Increasing total number of years in practice (adjusted odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.06) and higher visit volume (adjusted odds ratio 1.09 per 1,000 visits; 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.12) were associated with being named in a malpractice claim. No other factors were associated with malpractice claims. CONCLUSION: In this sample of emergency physicians, 1 in 11 were named in a malpractice claim during 4.5 years. Total number of years in practice and visit volume were the only identified factors associated with being named, suggesting that exposure to higher patient volumes and longer practice experience are the primary contributors to malpractice risk.

"Futile Care"-An Emergency Medicine Approach: Ethical and Legal Considerations.

Futility often serves as a proposed reason for withholding or withdrawing medical treatment, even in the face of patient and family requests. Although there is substantial literature describing the meaning and use of futility, little of it is specific to emergency medicine. Furthermore, the literature does not provide a widely accepted definition of futility, and thus is difficult if not impossible to apply. Some argue that even a clear concept of futility would be inappropriate to use. This article will review the origins of and meanings suggested for futility, specific challenges such cases create in the emergency department (ED), and the relevant legal background. It will then propose an approach to cases of perceived futility that is applicable in the ED and does not rely on unilateral decisions to withhold treatment, but rather on avoiding and resolving the conflicts that lead to physicians' believing that patients are asking them to provide "futile" care.

Refusal of Emergency Medical Treatment: Case Studies and Ethical Foundations.

Informed consent is an important component of emergency medical treatment. Most emergency department patients can provide informed consent for treatment upon arrival. Informed consent should also be obtained for emergency medical interventions that may entail significant risk. A related concept to informed consent is informed refusal of treatment. Patients may refuse emergency medical treatment during their evaluation and treatment. This article addresses important considerations for patients who refuse treatment, including case studies and discussion of definitions, epidemiology, assessment of decisional capacity, information delivery, medicolegal considerations, and alternative care plans.

Learning from an analysis of closed malpractice litigation involving myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the epidemiologic data, identify the pattern of dispute, and determine clinical litigious errors by analyzing closed malpractice claims involving myocardial infarction (MI) in Taiwanese courts. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed to analyze the verdicts pertaining to MI from the population-based database of the Taiwan judicial system between 2002 and 2013. The results of adjudication, involved specialists, primary dispute leading to lawsuits, and litigious errors were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 36 closed malpractice claims involving MI were included. The mean interval between the incident and litigation closure was 65.5 ± 28.3 months. Nearly 20% of the cases were judged against clinicians and the mean payment was $100639 ± 49617, while the mean imprisonment sentence was 4.3 ± 1.8 months. Cardiologists and emergency physicians were involved in 56.3% of cases, but won 92.6% of lawsuits, while other specialists lost nearly 25% of lawsuits. The most common dispute was misdiagnosis (38.9%), but this dispute had the lowest percentage of loss (7.1%). Disputes regarding delayed diagnosis were judged against the defendants in 50% of claims. Clinicians lost the lawsuit in the following conditions: 1) misdiagnosis of MI in patients with typical chest pain and known coronary artery risk factors; 2) failure to perform thoughtful evaluation and series investigations in patients suspicious of ischemic heart disease; 3) failure to perform indicated treatment to avoid disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Medical practitioners should keep a high index of MI suspicion, especially if the diagnosis and treatment of MI are beyond their daily practice. Prudent patient reevaluation, serial ECG and cardiac enzyme testing, and early consultation are suggested to reduce malpractice liability.