Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2018
Systematic review of professional liability when prescribing β-lactams for patients with a known penicillin allergy.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Jeffres Meghan N, Hall-Lipsy Elizabeth A, King S Travis, Cleary John D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe medical negligence and malpractice cases in which a patient with a known penicillin allergy received a β-lactam and experienced an adverse reaction related to the β-lactam.
DATA SOURCES: Lexis-Nexus, Westlaw, and Google Scholar were searched.
STUDY SELECTIONS: Medical negligence and malpractice cases were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: the plaintiff had a known penicillin allergy, received a β-lactam, and experienced an adverse event. All United States federal and state cases were eligible.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven unique cases met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen cases involved the receipt of a penicillin-based antibiotic; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff (patient or representative) prevailed or settled in 3 cases and defendants (providers) prevailed in 7 cases. Seven cases involved the receipt of a cephalosporin; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff settled with physicians before trial in 1 case and defendants prevailed in 3 cases. Two cases involved the receipt of a carbapenem. Defendants prevailed in one case and the legal outcome of the other case is unknown. In cases in which the defense successfully moved for summary judgment, judges cited a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating a cephalosporin or carbapenem was contraindicated for a patient with a penicillin allergy.
CONCLUSION: The cases with published legal outcomes found limited professional liability for clinicians who prescribed cephalosporins or carbapenems to a patient with a known penicillin allergy. These results may decrease the litigation fears of practitioners and risk managers within health care systems.
DATA SOURCES: Lexis-Nexus, Westlaw, and Google Scholar were searched.
STUDY SELECTIONS: Medical negligence and malpractice cases were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: the plaintiff had a known penicillin allergy, received a β-lactam, and experienced an adverse event. All United States federal and state cases were eligible.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven unique cases met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen cases involved the receipt of a penicillin-based antibiotic; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff (patient or representative) prevailed or settled in 3 cases and defendants (providers) prevailed in 7 cases. Seven cases involved the receipt of a cephalosporin; of these cases with a known legal outcome, the plaintiff settled with physicians before trial in 1 case and defendants prevailed in 3 cases. Two cases involved the receipt of a carbapenem. Defendants prevailed in one case and the legal outcome of the other case is unknown. In cases in which the defense successfully moved for summary judgment, judges cited a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating a cephalosporin or carbapenem was contraindicated for a patient with a penicillin allergy.
CONCLUSION: The cases with published legal outcomes found limited professional liability for clinicians who prescribed cephalosporins or carbapenems to a patient with a known penicillin allergy. These results may decrease the litigation fears of practitioners and risk managers within health care systems.