ArticleCJEM2023
Medico-legal risk and use of medical directives in the emergency department.
Article in CJEM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Acute Diarrhea in a Tertiary Emergency Department: From Readmission Determinants to Antibiotic Prescription.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Development of a Chest-Pain Protocol for Women Presenting to the Emergency Department.CJC open · 2024Review
- Medico-legal risk of infectious disease physicians in Canada: A retrospective review.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe medico-legal risk associated with application of medical directives in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe and analyze factors associated with medico-legal risk in cases involving medical directives in the ED.
methodsWe conducted a descriptive analysis of closed medico-legal cases [hospital complaints, regulatory authority (i.e., College) complaints, and civil legal actions] involving emergency physicians in Canadian EDs involving medical directives (alternate terms including "standing order", "nursing initiated", "nurse initiated", "nursing order", "triage initiated", "triage ordered", "directive", "ED protocol", and "ED's protocol"). We used data from closed cases involving the Canadian Medical Protective Association from January 2016 until December 2021. We abstracted descriptive factors of the cases and used a framework for contributing factors classification.
resultsFrom 2016 until 2021, 43,332 cases were closed and 1957 involved emergency physicians for which there was medico-legal information available for analysis. In all, 28 involved emergency physicians and medical directives. Situational awareness, team communication, and issues with clinical decision-making were the most important factors contributing to harm and medico-legal risk. Peer experts were critical of physicians not reviewing all results available for patients when initiated through a directive, misinterpreting test results, a less than thorough initial assessment, and of failing to reassess patients or re-order investigations when indicated.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the medico-legal risk exposure from the use of medical directives in the ED is low. Emergency departments may consider implementing systems to support adherence to medical directive policies, ensure physicians are alerted when medical directives are completed in a timely fashion, and leverage tools to notify the healthcare team when results have not been reviewed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37170059What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.