{"title":"非麻醉医师的程序性镇静:医疗事故诉讼回顾。","authors":"Ashley Eltorai","doi":"10.1080/01947648.2023.2174768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medical professionals other than anesthesiologists at times administer sedation for procedures. The aim of this study is to identify the adverse events, and their root causes, resulting in medical malpractice litigation in the United States related to procedural sedation administration by non-anesthesiologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cases containing the phrase \"conscious sedation\" were identified using Anylaw, an online national legal database. Cases were excluded if the primary allegation was not malpractice related to conscious sedation or the listing was a duplicate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 92 cases identified, 25 remained after application of exclusion criteria. The procedure type most commonly involved was dental (56%), followed by gastrointestinal (28%). The remaining procedure types were urology, electrophysiology, otolaryngology, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>By reviewing malpractice case narratives and outcomes, this study offers insight and opportunities for practice improvement among non-anesthesiologists providing conscious sedation for procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":44014,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Medicine","volume":"42 1-2","pages":"67-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Procedural Sedation by Non-Anesthesiologists: A Review of Malpractice Litigation.\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Eltorai\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01947648.2023.2174768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medical professionals other than anesthesiologists at times administer sedation for procedures. The aim of this study is to identify the adverse events, and their root causes, resulting in medical malpractice litigation in the United States related to procedural sedation administration by non-anesthesiologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cases containing the phrase \\\"conscious sedation\\\" were identified using Anylaw, an online national legal database. Cases were excluded if the primary allegation was not malpractice related to conscious sedation or the listing was a duplicate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 92 cases identified, 25 remained after application of exclusion criteria. The procedure type most commonly involved was dental (56%), followed by gastrointestinal (28%). The remaining procedure types were urology, electrophysiology, otolaryngology, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>By reviewing malpractice case narratives and outcomes, this study offers insight and opportunities for practice improvement among non-anesthesiologists providing conscious sedation for procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Medicine\",\"volume\":\"42 1-2\",\"pages\":\"67-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648.2023.2174768\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648.2023.2174768","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Procedural Sedation by Non-Anesthesiologists: A Review of Malpractice Litigation.
Introduction: Medical professionals other than anesthesiologists at times administer sedation for procedures. The aim of this study is to identify the adverse events, and their root causes, resulting in medical malpractice litigation in the United States related to procedural sedation administration by non-anesthesiologists.
Methods: Cases containing the phrase "conscious sedation" were identified using Anylaw, an online national legal database. Cases were excluded if the primary allegation was not malpractice related to conscious sedation or the listing was a duplicate.
Results: Of the 92 cases identified, 25 remained after application of exclusion criteria. The procedure type most commonly involved was dental (56%), followed by gastrointestinal (28%). The remaining procedure types were urology, electrophysiology, otolaryngology, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Discussion: By reviewing malpractice case narratives and outcomes, this study offers insight and opportunities for practice improvement among non-anesthesiologists providing conscious sedation for procedures.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Legal Medicine is the official quarterly publication of the American College of Legal Medicine (ACLM). Incorporated in 1960, the ACLM has among its objectives the fostering and encouragement of research and study in the field of legal medicine. The Journal of Legal Medicine is internationally circulated and includes articles and commentaries on topics of interest in legal medicine, health law and policy, professional liability, hospital law, food and drug law, medical legal research and education, the history of legal medicine, and a broad range of other related topics. Book review essays, featuring leading contributions to the field, are included in each issue.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
