Bleeding Control Protections Within US Good Samaritan Laws.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs). Designed to encourage bystanders to aid at the scene of an emergency, GSLs generally limit the risk of civil tort liability if the care is rendered in good faith. Nation-wide, a leading cause of preventable death is uncontrolled external hemorrhage. Public bleeding control initiatives aim to train the public to recognize life-threatening external bleeding, perform life-sustaining interventions (including direct pressure, tourniquet application, and wound packing), and to promote access to bleeding control equipment to ensure a rapid response from bystanders. METHODS: This study sought to identify the GSLs in each state and the District of Columbia to identify what type of responder is covered by the law (eg, all laypersons, only trained individuals, or only licensed health care providers) and if bleeding control is explicitly included or excluded in their Good Samaritan coverage. RESULTS: Good Samaritan Laws providing civil liability qualified immunity were identified in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. One state, Oklahoma, specifically includes bleeding control in its GSLs. Six states - Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Missouri - have laws that define those covered under Good Samaritan immunity, generally limiting protection to individuals trained in a standard first aid or resuscitation course or health care clinicians. No state explicitly excludes bleeding control from their GSLs, and one state expressly includes it. CONCLUSION: Nation-wide across the United States, most states have broad bystander coverage within GSLs for emergency medical conditions of all types, including bleeding emergencies, and no state explicitly excludes bleeding control interventions. Some states restrict coverage to those health care personnel or bystanders who have completed a specific training program. Opportunity exists for additional research into those states whose GSLs may not be inclusive of bleeding control interventions.

The Challenge of Emergency Abortion Care Following the Dobbs Ruling.

This Viewpoint discusses how limited or blocked access to legal abortion will affect the provision of emergency and critical care, including negative effects on patient health, legal intrusion into the patient-physician decision-making process, and concerns about legal jeopardy.

Regimento interno SAMUFor / Normas de Conduta Técnica e Gestora para Profissionais do SAMU 192 - Regional Fortaleza / SAMUFor Internal Regulations / Technical and Management Conduct Rules for SAMU 192 - Fortaleza Regional Professionals

Trata-se do Volume 1 da coleção "Normas de Conduta Técnica e Gestora para Profissionais do SAMU 192 - Regional Fortaleza" (SAMUFor), que publiciza o Regimento Interno do SAMUFor. Divide-se em três capítulos: 1. Normatização Vigente; 2. Normatização Municipal Vigente; e 3. Regimento Interno SAMUFor. Esse terceiro capítulo divide-se em: Regimento Interno do SAMU 192 ­ Regional Fortaleza; Regimento Interno da Gerência SAMUFor; Regimento Interno dos Órgãos de Assessoria da Gerência do SAMUFor; Regimento Interno do Núcleo Médico; Regimento Interno do Núcleo de Enfermagem; Regimento Interno do Núcleo de Farmácia; Regimento Interno do Núcleo Administrativo; Regimento Interno do Núcleo de Educação Permanente; e Regimento Interno da Central de Regulação das Urgências

Responsabilidad profesional médica en la asistencia urgente de especialistas en medicina familiar y comunitaria / Professional liability in primary care emergencies of specialists of family and community medicine

Introducción: La atención urgente en atención primaria es un ámbito clave del sistema sanitario, señalándose como un estresor importante el estar expuestos a recibir reclamaciones por responsabilidad profesional. El objetivo fue analizar las reclamaciones por responsabilidad profesional en la asistencia urgente de especialistas en medicina familiar y comunitaria y sus principales características en nuestro entorno.MétodosAnálisis descriptivo/retrospectivo de las reclamaciones contra especialistas de medicina familiar y comunitaria entre 1986 y 2015.ResultadosSe analizaron 224 reclamaciones, todas ellas resueltas, motivadas por error o retraso diagnóstico (122-54,5%), problemas de accesibilidad en la atención médica (48-21,4%), errores en el tratamiento (29-12,9%) y errores en la emisión de documentos (25-11,1%). En 147 (65,6%) se trataba de asistencia urgente y en 77 (34,3%) programada. La vía de interposición fue judicial en el 71,4%. En 6 casos (2,6%) la resolución implicó una indemnización, tratándose de 3 casos de asistencia urgente y 3 de programada.ConclusiónSe confirma el riesgo muy bajo de reclamación y de indemnización, no habiéndose hallado diferencias entre asistencia urgente y programada. Debe insistirse en aspectos de seguridad clínica, enfatizando en el error diagnóstico. (AU)

Introduction: Urgent assistance in primary care is a key area of the health system, being as an important stressor to be claimed for professional liability. The objective was to analyze the professional liability in primary care emergencies of specialists of family and community medicine and their main characteristics in our environment.MethodsRetrospective descriptive analysis of claims against General Practitioners between 1986 to 2015 was performed.Results224 claims, all resolved, were analyzed, due to error or diagnostic delay (122-54.5%), accessibility problems in medical care (48-21.4%), treatment errors (29-12.9%) and errors in the issuance of documents (25-11.1%). In 147 (65.6%) it was urgent assistance and in 77 (34.3%) scheduled. The way of interposition was judicial in 71.4%. In 6 cases (2.6%) the resolution involved compensation in 3 cases of urgent assistance and 3 of scheduled.ConclusionThe very low risk of claim and compensation payment is confirmed, with no differences found between urgent and scheduled assistance. Clinical safety aspects should be emphasized, especially in the diagnostic error. (AU)

Emergency use authorisation of Covid-19 vaccines: An ethical conundrum.

Large-scale vaccination with a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19 is the only way to conquer the ongoing lethal pandemic that has led to extraordinary social and economic upheaval globally. Fortunately, the world is on the verge of developing Covid-19 vaccines in an unprecedentedly short time. More than forty vaccines are in different stages of clinical trials, and a few are in the crucial phase III studies stage. A new demand for emergency use authorisation and rapid deployment of these vaccines before scrutinising phase III trial data is raging in different quarters. Can advancement of the deployment of these vaccines by even a few weeks give us rich public health dividends? Would it be ethical to deploy these novel vaccines based only on the safety and immunogenicity data generated by the phase-I and II clinical trials? Would it be ethical to deny vaccination of vulnerable populations against an untreatable infectious disease despite the availability of reasonably safe and efficacious vaccines for the want of phase III trial data? The answer is not straightforward, as there are many complexities involved. This commentary attempts to discuss some ethical issues involved in a decision to deploy Covid-19 vaccination before phase III trial results are declared.

Emergency Department and Urgent Care Medical Malpractice Claims 2001-15.

INTRODUCTION: This study reviews malpractice, also called medical professional liability (MPL), claims involving adult patients cared for in emergency departments (ED) and urgent care settings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of closed MPL claims of adults over 18 years, from the Medical Professional Liability Association's Data Sharing Project database from 2001-2015, identifying 6,779 closed claims. Data included the total amount, origin, top medical specialties named, chief medical factors, top medical conditions, severity of injury, resolution, average indemnity, and defense costs of closed claims. RESULTS: Of 6,779 closed claims, 65.9% were dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed. Another 22.8% of claims settled for an average indemnity of $297,709. Of the 515 (7.6%) cases that went to trial, juries returned verdicts for the defendant in 92.6% of cases (477/515). The remaining 7.4% of cases (38/515) were jury verdicts for the plaintiff, with an average indemnity of $816,909. The most common resulting medical condition cited in paid claims was cardiac or cardiorespiratory arrest (10.4%). Error in diagnosis was the most common chief medical error cited in closed claims. Death was the most common level of severity listed in closed (38.5%) and paid (42.8%) claims. Claims reporting major permanent injury had the highest paid-to-closed ratio, and those reporting grave injury had the highest average indemnity of $686,239. CONCLUSION: This retrospective review updates the body of knowledge surrounding medical professional liability and represents the most recent analysis of claims in emergency medicine. As the majority of emergency providers will be named in a MPL claim during their career, it is essential to have a better understanding of the most common factors resulting in MPL claims.

Legal Authority for Emergency Medical Services to Increase Access to Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

Treatment with buprenorphine significantly reduces both all-cause and overdose mortality among individuals with opioid use disorder. Offering buprenorphine treatment to individuals who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose represents an opportunity to reduce opioid overdose fatalities. Although some emergency departments (EDs) initiate buprenorphine treatment, many individuals who experience an overdose either refuse transport to the ED or are transported to an ED that does not offer buprenorphine. Emergency medical services (EMS) professionals can help address this treatment gap. In this Concepts article, we describe the federal legal landscape that governs the ability of EMS professionals to administer buprenorphine treatment, and discuss state and local regulatory considerations relevant to this promising and emerging practice.

Emergency Care EMTALA Alterations During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

The coronavirus 2019 pandemic has affected almost every aspect of health care delivery in the United States, and the emergency medicine system has been hit particularly hard while dealing with this public health crisis. In an unprecedented time in our history, medical systems and clinicians have been asked to be creative, flexible, and innovative, all while continuing to uphold the important standards in the US health care system. To continue providing quality services to patients during this extraordinary time, care providers, organizations, administrators, and insurers have needed to alter longstanding models and procedures to respond to the dynamics of a pandemic. The Emergency Medicine Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, or EMTALA, is 1 example of where these alterations have allowed health care facilities and clinicians to continue their work of caring for patients while protecting both the patients and the clinicians themselves from infectious exposures at the same time.

A Primer on the Good Samaritan Act.

This article explores the various legal and ethical facets for healthcare professionals to consider in order to avoid legal liability when rendering aid in an emergency. A general overview of Good Samaritan legislation enacted throughout the United States is discussed along with varying levels of assistance required or protected by law in selected states. Moral considerations for Christian nurses are addressed.

Examining the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act: impact on telemedicine for neurotrauma.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) protects patient access to emergency medical treatment regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status. A significant result of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the rapid acceleration in the adoption of telemedicine services across many facets of healthcare. However, very little literature exists regarding the use of telemedicine in the context of EMTALA. This work aimed to evaluate the potential to expand the usage of telemedicine services for neurotrauma to reduce transfer rates, minimize movement of patients across borders, and alleviate the burden on tertiary care hospitals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19 during a global pandemic. In this paper, the authors outline EMTALA provisions, provide examples of EMTALA violations involving neurosurgical care, and propose guidelines for the creation of telemedicine protocols between referring and consulting institutions.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke.

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

[Ethics of clinical trials]. / L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques.

TITLE: L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques. ABSTRACT: La pandémie de COVID-19 a conduit certains acteurs reconnus de la médecine à renoncer aux méthodes codifiées de la recherche médicale au profit d'affirmations établies dans l'urgence et sans réelle évaluation scientifique. Autant l'on peut comprendre que certains praticiens recourent à ce qui leur est ainsi proposé, autant cette confusion entre action dans l'urgence et recherche scientifique serait lourde de conséquences si elle venait à se généraliser, et cela à de multiples points de vue : image et rôle de la science, qualité et éthique de la recherche médicale et en fin de compte sort des malades soumis à des traitements mal évalués. Ce sont ces questions qui motivent la mise au point qui suit sur les questions d'éthique associées de longue date aux « essais thérapeutiques ¼, cette procédure rationnelle d'acquisition dans les meilleurs délais d'informations fiables sur les avantages et les risques des traitements dont on envisage l'éventuelle utilisation.

Electronic personal protective equipment: A strategy to protect emergency department providers in the age of COVID-19.

Emergent policy changes related to telemedicine and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have created opportunities for technology-based clinical evaluation, which serves to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE) and protect emergency providers. We define electronic PPE as an approach using telemedicine tools to perform electronic medical screening exams while satisfying the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. We discuss the safety, legal, and technical factors necessary for implementing such a pathway. This approach has the potential to conserve PPE and protect providers while maintaining safe standards for medical screening exams in the emergency department for low-risk patients in whom COVID-19 is suspected.

Penalties for Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Violations Involving Obstetrical Emergencies.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was intended to prevent inadequate, delayed, or denied treatment of emergent conditions by emergency departments (ED). While controversies exist regarding the scope of the law, there is no question that EMTALA applies to active labor, a key tenet of the statute and the only medical condition - labor - specifically included in the title of the law. In light of rising maternal mortality rates in the United States, further exploration into the state of emergency obstetrical (OB) care is warranted. Understanding civil monetary penalty settlements levied by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) related to EMTALA violations involving labor and other OB emergencies will help to inform the current state of access to and quality of OB emergency care. METHODS: We reviewed descriptions of all EMTALA-related OIG civil monetary penalty settlements from 2002-2018. OB-related cases were identified using keywords in settlement descriptions. We described characteristics of settlements including the nature of the allegation and compared them with non-OB settlements. RESULTS: Of 232 EMTALA-related OIG settlements during the study period, 39 (17%) involved active labor and other OB emergencies. Between 2002 and 2018 the proportion of settlements involving OB emergencies increased from 17% to 40%. Seven (18%) of these settlements involved a pregnant minor. Most OB cases involved failure to provide screening exam (82%) and/or stabilizing treatment (51%). Failure to arrange appropriate transfer was more common for OB (36%) compared with non-OB settlements (21%) (p = 0.041). Fifteen (38%) involved a provider specifically directing a pregnant woman to proceed to another hospital, typically by private vehicle. CONCLUSION: Despite inclusion of the term "labor" in the law's title, one in six settlements related to EMTALA violations involved OB emergencies. One in five settlements involved a pregnant minor, indicating that providers may benefit from education regarding obligations to evaluate and stabilize minors absent parental consent. Failure to arrange appropriate transfer was more common among OB settlements. Findings suggesting need for providers to understand EMTALA-specific requirements for appropriate transfer and for EDs at hospitals without dedicated OB services to implement policies for evaluation of active labor and protocols for transfer when indicated.