The changing standard of care in medicine. E-health, medical errors, and technology add new obstacles

Copying and pasting of examinations within the electronic medical record

Electronic patient records often include text that has been copied and pasted from other records. A type of copying that involves the highest risk for confusion, medical error, and medico-legal harm is the copying of the clinical examination. We studied this phenomenon using an automated text categorization algorithm to detect copied exams in a set of 167,076 VA records. Exam copying occurred frequently, in about 3% of all exams, or in 25% of patient charts. Thirteen percent of all authors had copied at least one exam, and 3% of authors had copied an exam from another author. There were significant differences between service types and levels of training of the authors. We speculate that copying and pasting of exams degrades the quality of the medical record, and that studying this behavior is integral to our understanding of phenomenology of the electronic medical record.

The 100,000 lives campaign: crystallizing standards of care for hospitals

The 100,000 Lives Campaign has the attention of U.S. hospitals, professional groups, and the media. Its aim has been endorsed, and its planks are being implemented, by more than 2,300 diverse hospitals in every state. We posit that the six planks of the campaign have become national standards of care and propose four theories of liability for hospitals that ignore the campaign or fail to implement its planks. As a result of the campaign, hospitals and their boards now face a legal incentive to reduce needless deaths through six specific interventions.

Liability implications of physician-directed care coordination

PURPOSE

Various public and private initiatives encourage physicians to coordinate care for patients who have multiple chronic conditions, but physicians may resist doing so for fear of liability. This article assesses the extent of liability risk.

METHODS

This qualitative study combines legal research with key informant interviews. Relevant legal authorities were identified through literature searches in legal databases. In-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 16 key informants who have relevant expertise in malpractice insurance, risk management, or liability law. Additionally, 19 other participants with relevant experience in case management or managed care were briefly queried about their liability experience relating to care management.

RESULTS

Some aspects of care coordination for patients with multiple chronic conditions hold potential for higher liability. Physicians coordinating care have a broader responsibility for patients with complex conditions who have a greater chance of poor outcomes. Care coordinators may be held to a higher standard of care by adopting best practices guidelines or by making medical decisions on issues that require specialized expertise. Other aspects, however, lower liability risk: elderly patients are less likely to sue, care coordination should improve outcomes, and the information systems that support enhanced care coordination target the major sources of medical error in primary care. On balance, the liability risks of care coordination are commensurate with other risks in primary care practice. Liability insurers indicated no reluctance to insure physicians who coordinate care for patients with multiple chronic conditions and no strong tendency to attribute higher risk to this role. Physicians who currently perform these or similar functions have not encountered demonstrably higher liability.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' perceptions about the liability risks of coordinating care for patients with multiple chronic conditions do not match evidence about the factors actually driving liability. It appears from many informed sources that there is no strong basis for physicians who perform these functions to have serious concerns about liability; instead, care coordination done well may lower liability risks.