-
A complaint filed against a nursing license can destroy a nurse’s career. It is crucial for risk managers and nurses to understand the risks and the best practices to protect against these complaints.
-
This case highlights important provisions of EMTALA, which is a less common basis for allegations of improper medical care when compared to standard allegations of medical malpractice. It also is an important reminder about how courts evaluate allegations of fraudulent concealment.
-
Engaging with the patient can help ED nurses avoid these risky situations. Nurses can notice subtle signs of escalation, treat with medications when appropriate, offer food, perform regular assessments, and facilitate hygiene. It also is important for ED nurses to demonstrate they did everything in their power to transfer the patient to a higher level of care, if that is what the patient needs.
-
Team training — on communication skills, monitoring patients, and sharing information while the patient still is in the ED — can ensure the correct tests are ordered and acted on.
-
This case demonstrates both procedural and substantive defenses for physicians and care providers. For the procedural side, the reversal by the appellate court reveals defendants in malpractice cases need not always wait for a jury to determine the care provider did not act negligently.
-
In this case, the physician’s liability was a case of failure to diagnose, a particularly concerning result given the physician’s treatment of the patient over the course of more than four years. A failure to diagnose, or a delayed diagnosis, can cause significant injuries or dramatically worsen the patient’s condition.
-
Inaccurate artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms could harm patients and result in liability exposure, the authors of a recently published paper argued. AI should be used as a tool, along with physical exam findings, narrative history, review of prior records, and clinical judgment.
-
This case illustrates the standard of causation used in wrongful death and other actions alleging a patient’s injuries were caused by a doctor’s or hospital’s negligence. In this case, the expert essentially testified to several actions by the hospital and attending physician that increased the risk of injury to the patient, but did not specifically conclude any one or more of those allegedly negligent actions actually caused the patient’s death.
-
This case shows the importance of jury instructions in medical negligence cases and defines how a court properly places the issues before the jury after evidence has been presented.
-
Hospitals and other healthcare organizations could benefit from a COVID-19 “glow” or “halo effect” in which medical malpractice juries look more favorably on defendants because of the public’s positive perception of healthcare workers. The portrayal of doctors and nurses as heroes might leave a lasting impression that affects how jurors perceive defense arguments.
