Failure to obtain computed tomography imaging in head trauma: A review of relevant case law

Rachel A. Lindor, Eric T. Boie, Ronna L. Campbell, Erik P. Hess, Annie T. Sadosty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives The objectives were to describe lawsuits against providers for failing to order head computed tomography (CT) in cases of head trauma and to determine the potential effects of available clinical decision rules (CDRs) on each lawsuit. Methods The authors collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged malpractice for failure to order head CT in the setting of head trauma from 1972 through February 2014 from an online legal research tool (WestlawNext). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form. The performance of five CDRs was evaluated. Results Sixty relevant cases were identified (52 adult, eight children). Of 48 cases with known outcomes, providers were found negligent in 10 cases (six adult, four pediatric), settled in 11 cases (nine adult, two pediatric), and were found not liable in 27 cases. In all 10 cases in which providers were found negligent, every applicable CDR studied would have indicated the need for head CT. In all eight cases involving children, the applicable CDR would have suggested the need for head CT or observation. Conclusions A review of legal cases reported in a major online legal research system revealed 60 lawsuits in which providers were sued for failing to order head CTs in cases of head trauma. In all cases in which providers were found negligent, CT imaging or observation would have been indicated by every applicable CDR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1493-1498
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume22
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

Craniocerebral Trauma
Head
Tomography
Observation
Pediatrics
Malpractice
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Lindor, R. A., Boie, E. T., Campbell, R. L., Hess, E. P., & Sadosty, A. T. (2015). Failure to obtain computed tomography imaging in head trauma: A review of relevant case law. Academic Emergency Medicine, 22(12), 1493-1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12823

Failure to obtain computed tomography imaging in head trauma : A review of relevant case law. / Lindor, Rachel A.; Boie, Eric T.; Campbell, Ronna L.; Hess, Erik P.; Sadosty, Annie T.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 12, 01.12.2015, p. 1493-1498.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lindor, RA, Boie, ET, Campbell, RL, Hess, EP & Sadosty, AT 2015, 'Failure to obtain computed tomography imaging in head trauma: A review of relevant case law', Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1493-1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12823
Lindor, Rachel A. ; Boie, Eric T. ; Campbell, Ronna L. ; Hess, Erik P. ; Sadosty, Annie T. / Failure to obtain computed tomography imaging in head trauma : A review of relevant case law. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 22, No. 12. pp. 1493-1498.
@article{a10d140418344f12b394c0eb78a9711d,
title = "Failure to obtain computed tomography imaging in head trauma: A review of relevant case law",
abstract = "Objectives The objectives were to describe lawsuits against providers for failing to order head computed tomography (CT) in cases of head trauma and to determine the potential effects of available clinical decision rules (CDRs) on each lawsuit. Methods The authors collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged malpractice for failure to order head CT in the setting of head trauma from 1972 through February 2014 from an online legal research tool (WestlawNext). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form. The performance of five CDRs was evaluated. Results Sixty relevant cases were identified (52 adult, eight children). Of 48 cases with known outcomes, providers were found negligent in 10 cases (six adult, four pediatric), settled in 11 cases (nine adult, two pediatric), and were found not liable in 27 cases. In all 10 cases in which providers were found negligent, every applicable CDR studied would have indicated the need for head CT. In all eight cases involving children, the applicable CDR would have suggested the need for head CT or observation. Conclusions A review of legal cases reported in a major online legal research system revealed 60 lawsuits in which providers were sued for failing to order head CTs in cases of head trauma. In all cases in which providers were found negligent, CT imaging or observation would have been indicated by every applicable CDR.",
author = "Lindor, {Rachel A.} and Boie, {Eric T.} and Campbell, {Ronna L.} and Hess, {Erik P.} and Sadosty, {Annie T.}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/acem.12823",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "1493--1498",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Failure to obtain computed tomography imaging in head trauma

T2 - A review of relevant case law

AU - Lindor, Rachel A.

AU - Boie, Eric T.

AU - Campbell, Ronna L.

AU - Hess, Erik P.

AU - Sadosty, Annie T.

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Objectives The objectives were to describe lawsuits against providers for failing to order head computed tomography (CT) in cases of head trauma and to determine the potential effects of available clinical decision rules (CDRs) on each lawsuit. Methods The authors collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged malpractice for failure to order head CT in the setting of head trauma from 1972 through February 2014 from an online legal research tool (WestlawNext). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form. The performance of five CDRs was evaluated. Results Sixty relevant cases were identified (52 adult, eight children). Of 48 cases with known outcomes, providers were found negligent in 10 cases (six adult, four pediatric), settled in 11 cases (nine adult, two pediatric), and were found not liable in 27 cases. In all 10 cases in which providers were found negligent, every applicable CDR studied would have indicated the need for head CT. In all eight cases involving children, the applicable CDR would have suggested the need for head CT or observation. Conclusions A review of legal cases reported in a major online legal research system revealed 60 lawsuits in which providers were sued for failing to order head CTs in cases of head trauma. In all cases in which providers were found negligent, CT imaging or observation would have been indicated by every applicable CDR.

AB - Objectives The objectives were to describe lawsuits against providers for failing to order head computed tomography (CT) in cases of head trauma and to determine the potential effects of available clinical decision rules (CDRs) on each lawsuit. Methods The authors collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged malpractice for failure to order head CT in the setting of head trauma from 1972 through February 2014 from an online legal research tool (WestlawNext). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form. The performance of five CDRs was evaluated. Results Sixty relevant cases were identified (52 adult, eight children). Of 48 cases with known outcomes, providers were found negligent in 10 cases (six adult, four pediatric), settled in 11 cases (nine adult, two pediatric), and were found not liable in 27 cases. In all 10 cases in which providers were found negligent, every applicable CDR studied would have indicated the need for head CT. In all eight cases involving children, the applicable CDR would have suggested the need for head CT or observation. Conclusions A review of legal cases reported in a major online legal research system revealed 60 lawsuits in which providers were sued for failing to order head CTs in cases of head trauma. In all cases in which providers were found negligent, CT imaging or observation would have been indicated by every applicable CDR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956609491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84956609491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/acem.12823

DO - 10.1111/acem.12823

M3 - Article

C2 - 26575581

AN - SCOPUS:84956609491

VL - 22

SP - 1493

EP - 1498

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 12

ER -