Emergency Department and Urgent Care Medical Malpractice Claims 2001-15.

INTRODUCTION: This study reviews malpractice, also called medical professional liability (MPL), claims involving adult patients cared for in emergency departments (ED) and urgent care settings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of closed MPL claims of adults over 18 years, from the Medical Professional Liability Association's Data Sharing Project database from 2001-2015, identifying 6,779 closed claims. Data included the total amount, origin, top medical specialties named, chief medical factors, top medical conditions, severity of injury, resolution, average indemnity, and defense costs of closed claims. RESULTS: Of 6,779 closed claims, 65.9% were dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed. Another 22.8% of claims settled for an average indemnity of $297,709. Of the 515 (7.6%) cases that went to trial, juries returned verdicts for the defendant in 92.6% of cases (477/515). The remaining 7.4% of cases (38/515) were jury verdicts for the plaintiff, with an average indemnity of $816,909. The most common resulting medical condition cited in paid claims was cardiac or cardiorespiratory arrest (10.4%). Error in diagnosis was the most common chief medical error cited in closed claims. Death was the most common level of severity listed in closed (38.5%) and paid (42.8%) claims. Claims reporting major permanent injury had the highest paid-to-closed ratio, and those reporting grave injury had the highest average indemnity of $686,239. CONCLUSION: This retrospective review updates the body of knowledge surrounding medical professional liability and represents the most recent analysis of claims in emergency medicine. As the majority of emergency providers will be named in a MPL claim during their career, it is essential to have a better understanding of the most common factors resulting in MPL claims.

Emergency Absentee Voting for Hospitalized Patients and Voting During COVID-19: A 50-State Study.

INTRODUCTION: Voters facing illness or disability are disproportionately under-represented in terms of voter turnout. Earlier research has indicated that enfranchisement of these populations may reinforce the implementation of policies improving health outcomes and equity. Due to the confluence of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the 2020 election, we aimed to assess emergency absentee voting processes, which allow voters hospitalized after regular absentee deadlines to still obtain an absentee ballot, and election changes due to COVID-19 in all 50 states. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study collecting 34 variables pertaining to emergency voting processes and COVID-19-related election changes, including deadlines, methods of submission for applications and ballots, and specialized services for patients. Data were obtained from, in order of priority, state boards of elections websites, poll worker manuals, application forms, and state legislation. We verified all data through direct correspondence with state boards of elections. RESULTS: Emergency absentee voting processes are in place in 39 states, with the remaining states having universal vote-by-mail (n = 5) or extended regular absentee voting deadlines (n = 6). The emergency absentee period most commonly began within 24 hours following the normal absentee application deadline, which was often seven days before an election (n = 11). Unique aspects of emergency voting processes included patients designating an "authorized agent" to deliver their applications and ballots (n = 38), electronic ballot delivery (n = 5), and in-person teams that deliver ballots directly to patients (n = 18). Documented barriers in these processes nationwide include unavailable online information (n = 11), restrictions mandating agents to be family members (n = 7), physician affidavits or signatures (n = 9), and notary or witness signature requirements (n = 15). For the November 2020 presidential election, 12 states expanded absentee eligibility to allow COVID-19 as a reason to request an absentee ballot, and 18 states mailed absentee ballot applications or absentee ballots to all registered voters. CONCLUSION: While 39 states operate emergency absentee voting processes for hospitalized voters, there are considerable areas for improvement and heterogeneity in guidelines for these protocols. For future election cycles, information on emergency voting and broader election reforms due to COVID-19 may be useful for emergency providers and patients alike to improve the democratic participation of voters experiencing illness.

Emergency Mail-in Voting in Rhode Island: Protecting Civic Participation During COVID-19 and Beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenges safe and equitable voting in the United States' 2020 elections, and in response, several states including Rhode Island (RI) have made significant changes to election policy. In addition to increasing accessibility of mail-in voting by mailing applications to all registered voters, RI has suspended their notary/witness requirement for both the primary and general election. However, RI's "emergency" voting process still plays a crucial role in allowing voters who missed the mail-in ballot application deadline, such as those unexpectedly hospitalized in the days leading up to the election, to still cast their ballot. COVID-19 has also forced RI to modify its emergency voting procedures, most notably allowing healthcare workers to serve on bipartisan ballot delivery teams. This commentary highlights these salient updates to voting procedures and serves as a primer as to how interested health care workers may navigate this process alongside patients and lead in the arena of patient voting rights.

The Virtual Toxicology Journal Club: the Dissemination and Discussion of Noteworthy Manuscripts Using Twitter.

BACKGROUND: Twitter-based chat groups (tweetchats) structured as virtual journal clubs have been demonstrated to provide value to learners. In order to promote topics in medical toxicology, we developed the #firesidetox tweetchat as a virtual journal club to discuss and disseminate topics in medical toxicology. METHODS: A group of medical toxicologists from the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) Public Affairs Committee and editorial board of the Journal of Medical Toxicology (JMT) developed a quarterly one hour tweetchat featuring JMT manuscripts. We gathered basic twittergraphics and used a healthcare hashtag aggregator to measure the number of impressions, participants, and tweets per tweetchat session. A qualitative analysis of important themes from #firesidetox was also completed. RESULTS: During five tweetchats over 12 months, we attracted a mean of 23 participants generating a mean of 150 tweets per #firesidetox tweetchat. Tweets generated a mean of 329,200 impressions (unique user views): these impressions grew by 300% from the first through fifth #firesidetox. The majority of participants self-identified as medical toxicologists or physician learners. Although most were from the USA, participants also came from Australia, Poland, and Qatar. Most tweets centered on medical education and 7.9% tweets were learner-driven or questions asking for a medical toxicologist expert opinion. CONCLUSION: The #firesidetox attracted a diverse group of toxicologists, learners, and members of the public in a virtual journal club setting. The increasing number of impressions, participants, and tweets during #firesidetox demonstrates the tweetchat model to discuss pertinent toxicology topics is feasible and well received among its participants.

Traumatic spondyloptosis of the cervical spine: A case report and discussion of worldwide treatment trends.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spondyloptosis is defined as the dislocation of the spinal column most often caused by trauma. Due to compression or transection of the spinal cord, severe neurological deficits are common. Here, we review the literature and report a case of traumatic C5-6 spondyloptosis that was successfully treated using an anterior-only surgical approach. METHODS: The patient presented with quadriplegia and absent sensation distal to the C5 dermatome following a rollover motor vehicle accident. The preoperative American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale was A. Computed tomography of the cervical spine revealed C5-6 spondyloptosis, lamina fractures on the right side at the C3-4 level, and widened facet joint on the right side at C6-7. RESULTS: The patient underwent cervical traction and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at the C5-6, C6-7 levels; no 360° fusion was warranted. Six months postoperatively, the patient remained quadriplegic below the C5 level. CONCLUSION: Presently, no consensus is present regarding the best treatment for spondyloptosis. Worldwide, the 360° approach is the most commonly used (45%), followed by anterior-only surgery (31%) and posterior-only surgery (25%). The surgical choice depends upon patient-specific features but markedly varies among geographical regions.