Civil Monetary Penalties for EMTALA Violations Involving Minors, 2002-2023.

Q1 Nursing
Sophie Terp, Sameer Ahmed, Zach Reichert, Kenneth Calero, Olivia Sison, Sarah Axeen, Abeerah Siddiqui, Neha Vontela, Genevieve Santillanes
{"title":"Civil Monetary Penalties for EMTALA Violations Involving Minors, 2002-2023.","authors":"Sophie Terp, Sameer Ahmed, Zach Reichert, Kenneth Calero, Olivia Sison, Sarah Axeen, Abeerah Siddiqui, Neha Vontela, Genevieve Santillanes","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2024-007732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is intended to prevent inadequate, delayed, or denied treatment of emergent conditions by emergency departments (EDs). EMTALA requirements pertain to patients of all ages presenting to dedicated EDs regardless of whether facilities have dedicated pediatric specialty services. This study aims to describe EMTALA-related civil monetary penalty (CMP) settlements involving minors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Descriptions of all EMTALA-related CMPs occurring between 2002 and 2023 were obtained from the Office of the Inspector General web site and reviewed for involvement of minors (<18 years of age) using keywords in settlement summaries. Characteristics of settlements involving minors were described and compared with settlements not involving minors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 260 EMTALA-related CMPs, 38 (14.6%) involved minors. Most involved failure to provide a medical screening exam (MSE) (86.8%) and/or stabilizing treatment (52.6%). Seven (18.4%) involved pregnant minors. Eleven (28.9%) involved ED staff directing a patient (or guardian) to another facility, typically by private vehicle, and another involved 2 patients referred to on-campus outpatient clinics without an MSE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>One in 7 CMPs related to EMTALA violations involved minors, and 1 in 5 of these minors was pregnant. One-third of CMPs involving minors included ED staff directing patients to proceed to another facility or on-campus clinic without MSE or stabilization. Findings suggest a need for providers to understand EMTALA-specific requirements for appropriate MSE, stabilization, and transfer, and for EDs at hospitals with limited pediatric services to implement policies for the evaluation of minors and protocols for transfer when indicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"674-681"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2024-007732","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is intended to prevent inadequate, delayed, or denied treatment of emergent conditions by emergency departments (EDs). EMTALA requirements pertain to patients of all ages presenting to dedicated EDs regardless of whether facilities have dedicated pediatric specialty services. This study aims to describe EMTALA-related civil monetary penalty (CMP) settlements involving minors.

Methods: Descriptions of all EMTALA-related CMPs occurring between 2002 and 2023 were obtained from the Office of the Inspector General web site and reviewed for involvement of minors (<18 years of age) using keywords in settlement summaries. Characteristics of settlements involving minors were described and compared with settlements not involving minors.

Results: Of 260 EMTALA-related CMPs, 38 (14.6%) involved minors. Most involved failure to provide a medical screening exam (MSE) (86.8%) and/or stabilizing treatment (52.6%). Seven (18.4%) involved pregnant minors. Eleven (28.9%) involved ED staff directing a patient (or guardian) to another facility, typically by private vehicle, and another involved 2 patients referred to on-campus outpatient clinics without an MSE.

Conclusions: One in 7 CMPs related to EMTALA violations involved minors, and 1 in 5 of these minors was pregnant. One-third of CMPs involving minors included ED staff directing patients to proceed to another facility or on-campus clinic without MSE or stabilization. Findings suggest a need for providers to understand EMTALA-specific requirements for appropriate MSE, stabilization, and transfer, and for EDs at hospitals with limited pediatric services to implement policies for the evaluation of minors and protocols for transfer when indicated.

2002-2023 年涉及未成年人的 EMTALA 违法行为的民事罚款。
背景和目标:紧急医疗和劳动法》(EMTALA)旨在防止急诊科(EDs)对紧急状况进行不适当、延迟或拒绝治疗。EMTALA 的要求适用于到专用急诊室就诊的所有年龄段的患者,无论急诊室是否有专门的儿科专科服务。本研究旨在描述与 EMTALA 相关的涉及未成年人的民事罚款 (CMP) 和解情况:方法:从总监察长办公室网站获取 2002 年至 2023 年期间发生的所有 EMTALA 相关民事罚款 (CMP) 案件的描述,并审查是否涉及未成年人(结果:在 260 起 EMTALA 相关民事罚款 (CMP) 案件中,有 260 起涉及未成年人:在 260 起与 EMTALA 相关的 CMP 中,有 38 起(14.6%)涉及未成年人。大多数涉及未提供医疗检查(MSE)(86.8%)和/或稳定治疗(52.6%)。7起(18.4%)涉及怀孕的未成年人。11起(28.9%)涉及急诊室工作人员将患者(或监护人)引导至其他机构,通常是乘坐私家车,另一起涉及2名患者在未进行MSE的情况下被转诊至校内门诊:结论:每 7 个与违反 EMTALA 相关的 CMP 中就有 1 个涉及未成年人,其中每 5 个未成年人中就有 1 个是孕妇。三分之一涉及未成年人的 CMP 包括急诊室工作人员在未进行 MSE 或稳定病情的情况下指示患者前往其他机构或校内诊所。研究结果表明,医疗服务提供者需要了解 EMTALA 对适当的 MSE、病情稳定和转院的具体要求,而儿科服务有限的医院的急诊室则需要实施未成年人评估政策和转院协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hospital pediatrics
Hospital pediatrics Nursing-Pediatrics
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
204
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信