Medical Legal Implications When Providing Emergency Care on a Commercial Flight.

INTRODUCTION: U.S. airlines often request a healthcare professional to volunteer to assist an ill passenger. Litigation from a Good Samaritans care of an in-flight medical emergency (IME) is considered improbable. The 1998 Aviation Medical Assistance Act (AMAA) encourages health care professionals to volunteer with indemnity for standard and good medical care. It does not offer legal or financial assistance. Our review explored the legal support malpractice companies and U.S. airlines provide if litigation is initiated for IME care. Malpractice insurance policies can differ on IME coverage. We found most private practice physicians policies include IME. Medical institutions may have policies restricting their physicians coverage to the institutions location. Those without malpractice coverage will need to retain and pay for a legal defense to demonstrate no gross negligence and no willful misconduct. The physicians, airline crews, and on-ground IME documentation support should be retained by the Good Samaritan especially for a pediatric or adolescent ill passenger. U.S. airlines consider a Good Samaritan medical volunteer as a passenger and do not extend legal assistance. This contrasts with some foreign airlines that do provide liability protection. Knowledge of the malpractice policy IME coverage is essential prior to traveling by air. After completing care for an ill passenger, physicians should generate their medical documentation and request the IME documentation generated by the airline and on-ground medical expert. We also believe U.S. airlines should assume responsibility to provide legal assistance to a Good Samaritan physician in the event of IME litigation.de Caprariis PJ, Di Maio A. Medical legal implications when providing emergency care on a commercial flight. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(7):588592.

Prevalence of Retinal Hemorrhages in Infants Presenting with Isolated Long Bone Fractures and Evaluation for Abuse.

BACKGROUND: Fractures are a frequent reason for emergency department visits and evaluation for abusive head trauma is an associated concern in infants. Recent guidelines have suggested that retinal examination may not be necessary in the absence of intracranial injury, but there is a lack of empirical evidence in infants < 1 year of age. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence of retinal hemorrhages in infants with isolated long bone fractures. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of infants < 1 year of age who presented to an urban, tertiary care pediatric hospital between January 2004 and April 2014 with the diagnosis of an acute long bone fracture or retinal hemorrhages. Patients were excluded for head injury, altered mental status, injury mechanism of motor vehicle accident, multiple fractures or injuries outside the fracture area. Patients were identified through trauma registry data and International Classification of Diseases codes. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-six patients had isolated long bone fractures, of which 68 patients did not undergo a retinal examination and 78 patients had dilated eye examinations, with no patients identified as having retinal hemorrhages. There were 46 patients identified with retinal hemorrhages concerning for abuse. No patients with retinal hemorrhages had isolated long bone fractures. CONCLUSIONS: In infants < 1 year of age presenting with isolated long bone fractures, a dilated eye examination to evaluate for retinal hemorrhages is not likely to yield additional information. Our results support recent studies that a subset of children and infants may not require dilated eye examinations in the evaluation of possible abuse.