Compliance
RSSArticles
-
Malpractice Outcome Hinges on ‘Reasonableness’ of Wait Time
To prevail in malpractice litigation involving a leave without being seen patient, the patient must prove the ED’s failure to treat him or her within the time frame of the visit violated the standard of care. Also, the attorney must prove his or her client suffered harm as a result of that violation.
-
Florida Jury Awards $68 Million to Patient in Sodium Spike Case
Providers should understand a patient’s chart should be thoroughly and completely reviewed throughout treatment. In this case, it is clear on at least several occasions providers either did not notice the information in the medical record, or they did not review test results. They also failed to administer medications ordered by another practitioner.
-
Appellate Court Rules Affidavit of Merit Statute Does Not Cover LPNs
One obvious lesson here is in the use of appeals. The appellate division found “[t]he AOM statute was enacted in 1995 as part of a tort reform package,” but ultimately concluded the tort reform did not extend to LPNs. While the appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss, the opposite easily could have occurred whereby a more liberal panel could have interpreted the statute to include LPNs.
-
Not a Simple Conversation: Understand Depositions and How to Prepare
It is likely any healthcare litigation will include depositions in which clinicians and administrators are asked questions under oath. The information provided can be critical to the outcome of the case. Depositions can be stressful and difficult for people not accustomed to them. Risk managers can help by preparing participants for this experience.
-
Improve Documentation for Compliance, Med/Mal Defense
Good documentation is the foundation of any solid malpractice defense and proper continuity of care argument, so risk managers constantly urge clinicians to make meticulous notes. But there are many ways in which documentation can fall short. Frequent education and adjustment to technological changes can be key to making good documentation.
-
Remember the Basics of Good Documentation
Proper documentation requires adhering to the basic goals of fully and accurately recording the patient encounter. Depending on the circumstances, chart notes should include a brief social narrative of relevant historical data, an explanation of the reason for the encounter, subjective complaints and observations reported by the patient, objective findings on physical examination by the clinicians, a diagnosis, treatment plan, and follow-up instructions for post-discharge care.
-
Reduce Workers’ Comp Liability with Lift Policies, Technology
Workers’ compensation poses a significant liability risk and expense for any company — and healthcare employers face exposures unique to their industry. Technological solutions may help. Overexertion, often due to patient handling, is a common injury for healthcare employees, leading to sprains and strains of the back or shoulder.
-
Former NFL Running Back Awarded $28.5 Million in Medical Malpractice Case
In this matter, the principal issue related to the physician’s failure to evaluate, diagnose, and treat the patient’s talus bone and cartilage condition. The plaintiff argued the physician delayed and/or misdiagnosed his condition and provided improper treatment, resulting in permanent damage. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis and delay in diagnosis of orthopedic conditions are common forms of medical malpractice.
-
Provide Frequent HIPAA Training with Real-World Scenarios
Training employees in HIPAA compliance should be frequent and include realistic situations, including scenarios in which they may unknowingly facilitate a breach.
-
Gastric Bypass Malpractice Yields $14.1 Million Verdict
There are two principal ramifications arising from this decision. First, in a case involving medical malpractice, a common-law cause of action, the Open Courts Provision does not supersede statutory restrictions on recovery of economic damages via Chapter 33. Second, the decision allows for settlement credits to be applied for settlement of derivative claims, even if the non-settling plaintiff does not have a cause of action for the same derivative claim.