Analysis of endotracheal intubation-related judicial precedents in South Korea.
Airway management
Complications
Emergency care endotracheal intubation
Legislation and jurisprudence
Medical liability
Journal
Korean journal of anesthesiology
ISSN: 2005-7563
Titre abrégé: Korean J Anesthesiol
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101502451
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
17
01
2021
accepted:
21
03
2021
pubmed:
25
3
2021
medline:
8
1
2022
entrez:
24
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Medical malpractice during endotracheal intubation can result in catastrophic complications. However, there are no reports on these severe complications in South Korea. We aimed to investigate the severe complications associated with endotracheal intubation occurring in South Korea, via medicolegal analysis. We retrospectively analyzed the closed judicial precedents regarding complications related to endotracheal intubation lodged between January 1994 and June 2020, using the database of the Supreme Court of Korea. We collected clinical and judicial characteristics from the judgments and analyzed the medical malpractices related to endotracheal intubation. Of 220 potential cases, 63 were included in the final analysis. The most common event location was the operating room (n = 20, 31.7%). All but 3 cases were associated with significant permanent or more severe injury, including 31 deaths. The most common problems were failed or delayed intubation (n = 56, 88.9%). Supraglottic airway device was used in 5.2% (n = 3) cases of delayed or failed intubation. Fifty-one (81%) cases were ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the claims for damages, with a median payment of Korean Won 133,897,845 (38,000,000, 308,538,274). The most common malpractice recognized by the court was that of not attempting an alternative airway technique (n = 32, 50.8%), followed by violation of the duty of explanation (n = 10, 15.9%). Our results could increase physicians' awareness of the major complications related to endotracheal intubation and help ensure patient safety.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Medical malpractice during endotracheal intubation can result in catastrophic complications. However, there are no reports on these severe complications in South Korea. We aimed to investigate the severe complications associated with endotracheal intubation occurring in South Korea, via medicolegal analysis.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the closed judicial precedents regarding complications related to endotracheal intubation lodged between January 1994 and June 2020, using the database of the Supreme Court of Korea. We collected clinical and judicial characteristics from the judgments and analyzed the medical malpractices related to endotracheal intubation.
RESULTS
Of 220 potential cases, 63 were included in the final analysis. The most common event location was the operating room (n = 20, 31.7%). All but 3 cases were associated with significant permanent or more severe injury, including 31 deaths. The most common problems were failed or delayed intubation (n = 56, 88.9%). Supraglottic airway device was used in 5.2% (n = 3) cases of delayed or failed intubation. Fifty-one (81%) cases were ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the claims for damages, with a median payment of Korean Won 133,897,845 (38,000,000, 308,538,274). The most common malpractice recognized by the court was that of not attempting an alternative airway technique (n = 32, 50.8%), followed by violation of the duty of explanation (n = 10, 15.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results could increase physicians' awareness of the major complications related to endotracheal intubation and help ensure patient safety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33761583
pii: kja.21020
doi: 10.4097/kja.21020
pmc: PMC8648513
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
506-513Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Apr 26;25(1):45
pubmed: 28441963
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Feb;30(2):207-13
pubmed: 25653494
Anesth Analg. 2004 Aug;99(2):607-13, table of contents
pubmed: 15271750
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005 Sep;22(9):678-82
pubmed: 16163914
Anesth Analg. 1998 Mar;86(3):635-9
pubmed: 9495429
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Oct;97(40):e12593
pubmed: 30290627
Anesth Analg. 2015 Nov;121(5):1389-93
pubmed: 26484464
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020 May;45(5):337-343
pubmed: 32114483
Anesthesiology. 2014 Jan;120(1):185-95
pubmed: 24201030
Anaesthesia. 2019 Feb;74(2):151-157
pubmed: 30288736
J Pain Res. 2020 Jun 25;13:1525-1532
pubmed: 32612380
Anesthesiology. 2018 Mar;128(3):502-510
pubmed: 29189209
Anesthesiology. 2012 Mar;116(3):629-36
pubmed: 22261795
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019 Apr;72(2):156-163
pubmed: 30301317
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec;115(6):827-48
pubmed: 26556848
Anesthesiology. 2005 Jul;103(1):33-9
pubmed: 15983454
Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Apr;25(4):346-62
pubmed: 25684039
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011 Jun;25(2):263-76
pubmed: 21550550
Anesth Analg. 1998 Sep;87(3):661-5
pubmed: 9728849
Anesthesiology. 2019 Oct;131(4):818-829
pubmed: 31584884
Conn Med. 1981 Feb;45(2):91-101
pubmed: 7471736
Anaesthesia. 2010 Jun;65(6):556-63
pubmed: 20345420
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009 Mar;26(3):218-22
pubmed: 19237983
Br J Anaesth. 2011 May;106(5):617-31
pubmed: 21447488
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Feb;120(2):323-352
pubmed: 29406182
Br J Anaesth. 2012 Dec;109 Suppl 1:i68-i85
pubmed: 23242753
Anesthesiology. 2012 Mar;116(3):515-7
pubmed: 22261794
Anesthesiology. 2003 Jan;98(1):23-7
pubmed: 12502974
Int J Emerg Med. 2017 Sep 13;10(1):28
pubmed: 28905252