The one problem is that it is next to impossible to make any general statement about the US legal system. While Henry's statement may very well apply in New York, it might not in Oklahoma. In the same way, a jury may find that it is a very reasonable justification in Evansville or South Bend, but it will get you destroyed in Indianapolis. Also, physicians are generally not impressed with "appeals to authority", so you will see debate over everything in this profession, no matter whose name is behind it.
It is also a bit dangerous to rely on statements that things "have never gone to court." An analogy can be made with the famous quip that the effectiveness of parachutes has never been demonstrated in a manner acceptable to "evidence based medicine." Cases where a surgeon cuts off the wrong leg also rarely, if ever, make it to a jury. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't something you have to worry about.
I still remain a little bit skeptical of the whole thing. If you were late on picking up a testicular torsion because you were filled with patients from the Boston Marathon bombing, that is easy enough to explain without contemporaneous chart documentation. Now, if you know that something was missed, that the ultrasound was delayed for 5 hours while the patient was waiting, in that case there is really nothing to lose about documenting the reason for the delay. But as a generic statement in every chart, I just don't see it. And if the problem was a staffing/resource shortage, as a physician you still have the duty to demonstrate that you took action to alleviate the problem. That duty likely exists even apart from malpractice liability.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.
ED at full capacity documentation
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire