The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2023
Medico-legal liability of injuries arising from laryngoscopy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fritz Christian G, Monos Stylianos D, Romeo Dominic, Lowery Anne, Xu Katherine, Atkins Joshua, Rajasekaran Karthik
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Dental and mucosal injuries from laryngoscopy in the peri-operative period are common medico-legal complaints. This study investigated lawsuits arising from laryngoscopy.
METHODS: Westlaw, a legal database containing trial records from across the USA, was retrospectively reviewed. Plaintiff and/or defendant characteristics, claimed injuries, legal outcomes and awards were extracted.
RESULTS: Of all laryngoscopy-related dental or mucosal injuries brought before a state or federal court, none (0 per cent) resulted in a defence verdict against the provider or monetary gain for the patient. Rulings in the patient's favour were observed only when laryngoscopy was found to be the proximate cause of multiple compounding complications that culminated in severe medical outcomes such as exsanguination, septic shock or cardiopulmonary arrest.
CONCLUSION: Proper laryngoscopy technique and a robust informed-consent process that accurately sets patients' expectations reduces litigation risk. Future litigation pursuits should consider the low likelihood of malpractice allegation success at trial.
METHODS: Westlaw, a legal database containing trial records from across the USA, was retrospectively reviewed. Plaintiff and/or defendant characteristics, claimed injuries, legal outcomes and awards were extracted.
RESULTS: Of all laryngoscopy-related dental or mucosal injuries brought before a state or federal court, none (0 per cent) resulted in a defence verdict against the provider or monetary gain for the patient. Rulings in the patient's favour were observed only when laryngoscopy was found to be the proximate cause of multiple compounding complications that culminated in severe medical outcomes such as exsanguination, septic shock or cardiopulmonary arrest.
CONCLUSION: Proper laryngoscopy technique and a robust informed-consent process that accurately sets patients' expectations reduces litigation risk. Future litigation pursuits should consider the low likelihood of malpractice allegation success at trial.