English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Physicians who practice emergency medicine (EM) often perform procedural interventions, which can occasionally result in unintended patient harm. Our study's objective was to identify and describe the interventions and contributing factors associated with medico-legal (ML) cases involving emergency physicians performing procedural interventions.  Methods:  The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) is a not-for-profit, ML organization which represented over 99,000 physicians at the time of this study. We extracted five years (2014-2018) of CMPA data describing closed ML cases involving procedural interventions (e.g. suturing, reducing a dislocated joint) and excluding interventions related to pharmacotherapy (e.g. injection of local anesthetic), diagnosis (electrocardiograms) and physical assessments (e.g. ear exams), performed by physicians practicing EM. We then applied an internal contributing factor framework to identify themes. We analysed the data using descriptive statistics.  Results:  We identified 145 cases describing 145 patients who had 205 procedures performed in the course of their EM care. The three most common interventions were orthopedic injury management (47/145, 32.4%), wound management (43/145, 29.7%), and Advanced Cardiac Life Support (24/145, 16.6%). Out of 145 patients, 93.8% (136/145) experienced a patient safety event, and 55.9% (76/136) suffered an avoidable harmful incident. One quarter of patients suffered mild harm (34/76, 25.0%), 18.4% of patients died, 14.5% suffered severe harm, and 13.2% moderate harm. Peer experts were critical of 86/145 cases (59.3%) where the following provider contributing factors were found: a lack of situational awareness (20/68, 29.4%), and deficient physician clinical decision-making (54/68, 79.7%). Clinical decision-making issues included a lack of thoroughness of assessment (33/54, 61.1%), failure to perform tests or interventions (21/54, 38.9%), and a delay or failure to seek help from another physician (17/54, 31.2%). Peer experts were also critical of 48.8% of cases containing team factors (42/86) due to deficient medical record keeping (26/42, 61.9%), and communication breakdown with patients or other team members (25/42, 59.5%).  Conclusion:  Both provider and team factors contributed to ML cases involving EM physicians performing procedural interventions. Addressing these factors may improve patient safety and reduce ML risk for physicians.

MP40: What are the factors contributing to medico-legal risk of procedural interventions performed by physicians practicing emergency medicine?