An EP could be hundreds of feet away when a patient with a life-threatening condition is mistriaged. That doesn’t necessarily stop an affected patient from suing that EP for the resulting adverse outcome.
Malpractice cases may become indefensible if the forensic IT expert can prove the ED chart was altered in some way. Data regarding physical examination or history can appear self-serving. The veracity of altered information will be questioned. Even if the EP’s motive was valid, it may appear otherwise.
Sparse or inaccurate charting allows plaintiff attorneys to allege inadequate neurological examination in missed stroke cases against EPs. However, documentation that includes a thorough description of all the aspects of the exam, an explanation of why the EP didn’t think stroke was likely, and an indication that the EP consulted a neurologist can help the defense.
Deposition questions are designed to elicit damaging testimony from EPs. A “yes” response to a seemingly innocuous question about the standard of care can lead to a world of trouble for the defense team.
If ED providers’ documentation conflicts in any way, plaintiff attorneys will use this to bolster a malpractice case. Conflicting documentation makes it difficult for either side to determine what really happened.
