Skip to main content

Medicolegal Risks and Outcomes of Sedation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pediatric Sedation Outside of the Operating Room

Abstract

Most children who receive sedation outside the operating room have good outcomes and benefit from efforts to reduce pain and anxiety during a procedure. However, administration of sedative and analgesic agents to children in the outpatient setting always carries some risk to the patient. If a child has an adverse outcome after sedation, and there is evidence of substandard care then there is the potential for a professional liability (“malpractice”) claim against the providers and/or the facility. It is difficult to track with any reliability the actual results of all such claims throughout the USA, in part because there is no uniform national system to report jury verdicts and judgments in state courts that are not appealed. Further, if a malpractice case is settled prior to a jury verdict, the details of those settlements are often kept confidential by the agreement of parties, typically at the request of the medical providers or their insurance carriers. A review of publicly available reports has identified several pediatric sedation claims of alleged negligence. In each of these malpractice cases, the allegations were that the care provided by the professionals (and/or institution) was below an established standard of care, that there was a breach of that standard and that the breach caused injury to the patient. Standard of care is defined as that care which a reasonable physician in a particular specialty would have given to a similar patient, under similar circumstances. Because most clinicians have similar access to information and knowledge, they are usually held to a national standard of care regardless of how remotely the individual may practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  2. 2.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  3. 3.

    Federal law requires all insurance companies to report the details of every medical malpractice payment to the Federal Government 42 U.S.C. § 11131. This information however is not available to the public. Specifically the law requires the following:

    §11131. Requiring reports on medical malpractice payments.

    (a) In general. Each entity (including an insurance company) which makes payment under a policy of insurance, self-insurance, or otherwise in settlement (or partial settlement) of, or in satisfaction of a judgment in, a medical malpractice action or claim shall report, in accordance with section 424 [42 USCS § 11134], information respecting the payment and circumstances thereof.

    (b) Information to be reported. The information to be reported under subsection (a) includes:

    (1) The name of any physician or licensed health care practitioner for whose benefit the payment is made.

    (2) The amount of the payment.

    (3) The name (if known) of any hospital with which the physician or practitioner is affiliated or associated.

    (4) A description of the acts or omissions and injuries or illnesses upon which the action or claim was based.

    (5) Such other information as the Secretary determines is required for appropriate interpretation of information reported under this section.

    (c) Sanctions for failure to report. Any entity that fails to report information on a payment required to be reported under this section shall be subject to a civil money penalty of not more than $ 10,000 for each such payment involved. Such penalty shall be imposed and collected in the same manner as civil money penalties under subsection (a) of section 1128A of the Social Security Act [42 USCS § 1320a-7a] are imposed and collected under that section.

  4. 4.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  5. 5.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  6. 6.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  7. 7.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  8. 8.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  9. 9.

    Under federal regulations that apply whenever a Hospital accepts Medicare and Medicaid funds, the governing body of a hospital must assure, where emergency services are provided outside the hospital, that the medical staff has written policies and procedures for appraisal of emergencies, initial treatment and referral when appropriate. 42 C.F.R. § 482.12 (f)(2) Under the Joint Commission of Accredited Healthcare Organization standards, the hospital is required to ensure that services provided by contractual arrangements are provided safely and effectively. Pursuant to those standards, the hospital “retains overall responsibility and authority for services furnished under a contract.” Standard LD.3.50 (2007).

  10. 10.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  11. 11.

    Please refer to section “Glossary” at the end of chapter.

  12. 12.

    The following are general lay definitions of terms common to the practice of criminal and civil law. Some of the precise definitions vary from state to state according to that state’s laws and practice.

  13. 13.

    Please refer to section “Glossary.”

  14. 14.

    Please refer to section “Glossary.”

  15. 15.

    Please refer to section “Glossary.”

  16. 16.

    Please refer to section “Glossary.”

References

  1. King WK, Stockwell JA, Deguzman MA, et al. Evaluation of a pediatric sedation service for common diagnostic procedures. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13:673–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pena BM, Krauss B. Adverse events of procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;34:483–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cravero JP, Bilke GT, Beach M, et al. Incidence and nature of adverse events during pediatric sedation/anesthesia for procedures outside the operating room: Report from the pediatric sedation research consortium. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1087–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Green SM, Roback MG, Krauss B, et al. Predictors of airway and respiratory adverse events with ketamine sedation in the emergency department: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 8282 children. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54:158–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fein JA, Zempsky WT, Cravero JP, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. Relief of pain and anxiety in pediatric patients in emergency medicine systems. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e1391–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Furrow BR. The patient injury epidemic: medical malpractice litigation as a curative tool. Drexel L Rev. 2011;4:41–76.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Selbst SM, Korin JB. Preventing malpractice lawsuits in pediatric emergency medicine. Dallas: American College of Emergency Physicians; 1997. p. 1–196.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carroll AE, Parikh PD, Buddenbaum JL. The impact of defense expenses in medical malpractice claims. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(1):135–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Selbst SM, Friedman MJ, Singh SB. Epidemiology and etiology of malpractice lawsuits involving children in US emergency departments and urgent care centers. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005;21:165–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla DL, et al. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:629–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3; 18 Del. C. § 6853; 735 ILCS 5/2-622; N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-27; and Ohio Civ. R. 10(D)(2).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bing v. Thunig, 143 N.E.2d 3, 9, (N.Y. 1957); Weldon v. Seminole Municipal Hospital, 709 P.2d 1058, 1059 (Okla. 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Barkes v. River Park Hosp., Inc., 328 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 527 Pa. 330 (Pa. 1991); Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504 (Pa. 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Seneris v. Haas, 45 Cal. 2d 811 (Cal. 1955).

    Google Scholar 

  16. American College of Emergency Medicine. Policy statement-sedation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(5):469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. See 42 C.F.R. § 482.52; Joint Commission Standards 13.20-13.40. (2007); States sometimes also have similar regulations. See e.g.28 Pa. Code § 555.31 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Joint Commission Standards 42 C.F.R. § 482.12 (f)(2) Standard LD.3.50 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shavit I, Keidan I, Hoffman Y, et al. Enhancing patient safety during pediatric sedation-The impact of simulation -based training of non-anesthesiologists. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(8):740–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Cote CJ, Wilson S, Work Group on Sedation. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: an update. Pediatrics. 2006;118(6):2587–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cote CJ, Karl HW, Notterman DA, et al. Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: a critical incident analysis of contributing factors. Pediatrics. 2000;106:633–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mandt MJ, Roback MG. Assessment and monitoring of pediatric procedural sedation. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2007;8:223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rutman MS. Sedation for emergent diagnostic imaging studies in pediatric patients. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009;21:306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pershad J, Kost S. Emergency department based sedation services. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2007;8:253–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Comprehensive accreditation manual for hospitals: the official handbook by the JCAHO. Oakbrook Terrace: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Green SM, Roback MG, Krauss B. Laryngospasm during emergency department ketamine sedation. A case-control study. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010;26(11):798–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wright AA, Katz IT. Bar Coding for Patient Safety, 353 New Eng. J Med. 2005;329(330).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lesar TS, Briceland L, Stein DS. Factors related to errors in medication prescribing. JAMA. 1997;277:312–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Levine SR, Cohen MR, Blanchard NR, et al. Guidelines for preventing medication errors in pediatrics. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2001;6:426–42.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Singh H, Thomas EJ, Petersen LA, et al. Medical errors involving trainees. A study of closed malpractice claims from 5 insurers. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2030–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee of Origin: Standards and Practice Parameters. Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring. Last amended on October 20, 2010. http://www.asahq.org/~/media/For%20Members/documents/Standards%20Guidelines%20Stmts/Basic%20Anesthetic%20Monitoring%202011.ashx

  32. Mace SE, Brown LA, Francis L, et al. Clinical policy: Critical issues in sedation of pediatric patients in the ED. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;51:378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Noah L. Medicine’s epistemology: mapping the haphazard diffusion of knowledge in the biomedical community. Ariz L Rev. 2002;373:462–3.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Langhan ML, Mallory M, Hertzog J, et al. Physiologic monitoring practices during pediatric procedural sedation. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(11):990–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Green SM, Roback MG, Milner JR, et al. Fasting and emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a consensus- based clinical practice advisory. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:454–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roback MG, Bajaj L, Wathen JE, et al. Pre-procedural fasting and adverse events in procedural sedation and analgesia in a pediatric emergency department: are they related? Ann Emerg Med. 2004;44:454–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: Application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures. Anaesthesioliogy. 2011;114:495–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cronan K. Patient complaints in a pediatric emergency department: averting lawsuits. Clin Ped Emerg Med. 2003;4(4):235–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Beckman HB, Markalis KM, Suchman AL, et al. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons learned from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1365.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Githens PH, et al. Factors that prompted families to file malpractice claims following perinatal injuries. JAMA. 1992;267:1359–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Selbst SM. Risk management and medico-legal aspects of procedural sedation. In: Krauss B, Brustowicz RM, editors. Pediatric procedural sedation and Analgesia. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1999. p. 115–23.

    Google Scholar 

  42. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Committee on Biothetics. Consent for emergency medical services for children and adolescents. Policy Statement. Pediatrics. 2011;128(2):427–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wisselo TL, Stuart C, Muris P. Providing parents with information before anesthesia; what do they really want to know? Pediatr Anaesth. 2004;14:299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kasuto Z, Vaught W. Informed decision making and refusal of treatment. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2003;4:285–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Applebaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1635–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kachalia A, Gandhi TK, Puopolo AL, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: a study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:196–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dhingra KR, Elms A, Hobgood C. Reducing error in the emergency department: A call for standardization of the sign-out process. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(6):637–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yu KT, Green RA. Critical aspects of emergency department documentation and communication. Emerg Clin NA 2009; 27(4):641-54, ix.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Barratt K, Schwid B, Schwid M. Don’t doctor your records. Wis Med J. 1996;95:385–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Selbst SM. The difficult duty of disclosing medical errors. Contemp Pediatr. 2003;20:51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  51. O’Connor E, Coates HM, Yardley IE, et al. Disclosure of patient safety incidents: a comprehensive review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2010;22(5):371–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mitka M. Disclosing medical errors does not mean greater liability costs. JAMA. 2010;304(13):1656–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Westgate A. You’ve been served-now what? Physicians Practice 2012;115–20.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tinsley C. Experience of families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2008;122(4):e799–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Dingeman RS, Mitchell EA, Meyer EC, et al. Parent presence during complex invasive procedures and cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review of the literature. Pediatrics. 2007;120:842–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Selbst SM. Pediatric emergency medicine: legal briefs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998;14(6):430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Selbst SM. Pediatric emergency medicine: legal briefs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27(10):992–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Selbst SM. Pediatric emergency medicine: legal briefs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003;19:46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Selbst SM. Pediatric emergency medicine: legal briefs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1996;12:309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Selbst SM. Pediatric emergency medicine: legal briefs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005;21:353–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Selbst SM, Osterhoudt K. Pediatric emergency medicine: legal briefs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008;24:700–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Additional Reading

  • Coombs v. Curnow, 219 P.3d 453, 462 (Idaho 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Accountability Office. Medical malpractice: implications of rising premiums on access to health care. Washington DC: GAO; Aug. 29, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health care system. Washington, DC: IOM, National Academies Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez v. Driscoll Found. Children's Hosp., 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 4602 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Aug. 28, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • NAIC. Countrywide summary of medical malpractice insurance calendar years 1991–2008. Washington, DC: National Association of Insurance Commissioners; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheinfeld N. Photographic images, digital imaging, dermatology and the law. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140:473–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Selbst SM. Pediatric emergency medicine: legal briefs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000;16:459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven M. Selbst M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Glossary

The following are general lay definitions of terms common to the practice of criminal and civil law. Some of the precise definitions vary from state to state according to that state’s laws and practice.

Breach 

The violation of an obligation, engagement, or duty.

Certificate of merit 

A certificate filed in a medical malpractice action. Under court rules, it is filed by the plaintiff’s attorney with the complaint (the document that begins the lawsuit and contains the plaintiff’s allegations). In a certificate of merit, the plaintiff’s attorney certifies that he/she has reviewed the facts of the case, and has consulted with a medical expert and concluded that the plaintiff’s action has merits.

Civil lawsuit 

A legal case brought on behalf of an individual (plaintiff) against another individual or entity (defendant) who acted negligently (below some standard of care) and thereby caused them harm. This case is brought for a monetary recovery for damages sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is typically by a preponderance of the evidence, a lesser burden of proof than in a criminal prosecution Footnote 12. A successful civil lawsuit usually results in the payment of money for the losses sustained by the plaintiff.

Criminal Negligence 

Acting in a grossly negligent manner. Typically this involves the conscious disregard of a known risk of death or serious injury.

Defense 

Those responsible for representing a defendant in a criminal case or a civil lawsuit Footnote 13. The defense does not have the burden of proving innocence or lack of fault.

Homicide 

The unlawful taking of another’s life. Homicide ranges from first degree murder, the taking of a life with specific intent to kill and with malice, to involuntary manslaughter Footnote 14, an accidental killing where the defendant acts unintentionally and without malice but with criminal negligence Footnote 15.

Indemnity 

A contractual insurance agreement whereby the insurer agrees to pay for the insured’s loss or claims arising from some contemplated act, such as professional negligence.

Informed consent 

The consent given by a patient to a doctor that allows the doctor to perform a certain procedure or render particular treatment. The consent is “informed” because the doctor has explained the specifics of the procedure or treatment to the patient, including the risks and alternatives, who has then made a knowing, informed decision about whether they want to proceed.

Involuntary manslaughter 

The unlawful taking of another’s life without intent to kill or to harm and without malice, but the act is committed with criminal negligence.

Jury verdict 

The definitive answer(s) given by the Jury to the court concerning the issues or questions of fact committed to the jury for their deliberation and determination. Depending on the jurisdiction, verdicts in civil lawsuits may not require unanimity.

Malpractice 

Professional negligence. This is an act of negligence committed by a professional such as a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, etc., while acting within their profession. The negligent conduct is measured by the standard of care in that profession and in that specialty in which the professional practices. A doctor who commits malpractice is said to have breached the standard of care in their area of specialty.

Negligence 

Failing to act in a reasonably prudent manner.

Prosecution 

Charging an individual (defendant) with a violation of criminal law, marshaling the evidence against that individual, presenting the evidence to a court or jury and, if a conviction is obtained, proceeding to sentencing against the individual. The prosecutor represents the people of the state where the crime occurred and technically not the victim of the crime, although the prosecutor often speaks on behalf of the victim. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If a conviction is obtained, the defendant faces incarceration.

Standard of care 

The standard according to which negligence in a particular situation is determined. The care that an ordinary prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Selbst, S.M., Cohen, S.L. (2015). Medicolegal Risks and Outcomes of Sedation. In: Mason, K. (eds) Pediatric Sedation Outside of the Operating Room. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1390-9_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1390-9_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1389-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1390-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics