¿ë¾î ] ¿¬±¸¹æ¹ý ] ÇöȲ ] ¹ß»ý¿øÀΠ] ºÐ¸¸ ] ôÃß¼ö¼ú ] º´¿ø°¨¿° ] Áø·á°ú¸ñº° ºÐ·ù ] ÀÇ·á ÇàÀ§º° ºÐ·ù ] Áúȯº° ºÐ·ù ] °ú½Ç À¯Çüº° ºÐ·ù ] ´ëÃ¥ ] ÀÇÇÐÀû ÀÇ»ç°áÁ¤·Ð ] ¹æ¾îÁø·á ] ÆÇ·Ê ] ¼Ò¼Û¿ÜÀû ÀÇ·áºÐÀïÀÇ ÇØ°á ] ÀÇ·áºÐÀïÁ¶Á¤¹ý ] ÀÇ»çÀÇ ¹ýÀû Àǹ« ] ȯÀÚÃøÀÇ ½ÃÀ§ ] ÀÇ·á¹ý·ü ] ¹ý·ü ] ±âÃÊÀÇÇР] ÀÌ»ó¼Ò°ß ] ÀÓ»óÀÇÇР] Áõ·Ê ] ´ºÁú·£µå ] ¹Ì±¹ ] µ¶ÀÏ ] ¿µ±¹ ] ¿À½ºÆ®·¹Àϸ®¾Æ ] ÀÌÅ»¸®¾Æ ] ÀϺ» ] Áß±¹ ] ÇÁ¶û½º ] ij³ª´Ù ] ±âŸ ±¹°¡ ] ¹®Çå ] ÀÇ·á¼Ò¼Û ] °Ë»ö ] Medical malpractice ] Kunstfehler in Deutschland ]


¡¡

[ÇöÀçÀ§Ä¡]: Ȩ> Áø·á°ú¸ñº° ºÐ·ù> ÀÀ±ÞÀÇÇÐ> ¼Ò¾Æ ÀÀ±ÞȯÀÚÀÇ ÀÇ·á»ç°í

¼Ò¾Æ ÀÀ±ÞȯÀÚÀÇ ÀÇ·á»ç°í

¡¡

  • Selbst SM, Friedman MJ, Singh SB. Epidemiology and etiology of malpractice lawsuits involving children in US emergency departments and urgent care centers.   Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005 Mar;21(3):165-9.

    • Áúȯº° ºóµµ(ºóµµº° ¼ø¼­)

      1. ³ú¼ö¸·¿°

      2. Ãæ¼ö¿°

      3. À§ÆÈ»À °ñÀý(»ó¹Ú°ñ °ñÀý)

      4. ¾Æ·¡ÆÈ»À °ñÀý(³ë»À ȤÀº ÀÚ»À °ñÀý, ¿ä°ñ ȤÀº ô°ñ °ñÀý)

      5. °íȯ²¿ÀÓ(°íȯ¿°Àü, testicular torsion)

      6. ³Ò´Ù¸®»À °ñÀý(´ëÅð°ñ °ñÀý)

      7. ¾Æ·§´Ù¸®»À °ñÀý(Á¤°­»À ȤÀº Á¾¾Æ¸®»À °ñÀý, °æ°ñ ȤÀº ºñ°ñ °ñÀý)

      8. ½Å»ý¾Æ ½Å°æÇÐÀû ¼Õ»ó(neurologically impaired newborn)

      9. ¹è¿Í °ñ¹ÝºÎÀ§¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ±âŸ Áõ»ó(other symptoms involving the abdomen and pelvis)

      10. Æó·Å

    • ³ªÀ̺° ÁúȯÀÇ ºÐÆ÷

      • ¡¡ First Second Third
        0-2¼¼ ³ú¼ö¸·¿° ½Å»ý¾Æ ½Å°æÇÐÀû ¼Õ»ó Æó·Å
        3-5¼¼ °ñÀý ³ú¼ö¸·¿° Ãæ¼ö¿°
        6-11¼¼ °ñÀý Ãæ¼ö¿° ³ú¼ö¸·¿°
        12-17¼¼ °ñÀý Ãæ¼ö¿° °íȯ²¿ÀÓ
    • 10´ë °ú½ÇÀ¯Çü

      • ¡¡ ¼ÕÇØ¹è»ó û±¸ °Ç¼ö(Number of claims) N=2132 Àüü °Ç¼ö¿¡¼­ÀÇ ºñÀ²
        Áø´Ü°ú½Ç(Diagnostic error) 832 39
        °ú½Ç ¾øÀ½(No medical error) 391 18
        ½Ã¼úÀÇ ¼ú±âºÎÁ·(Improper performance of procedure) 386 18
        °¨µ¶°ú½Ç(failure to supervise other staff) 120 6
        ÀÀ±Þóġ ȤÀº ½Ã¼úÀÇ ¹Ì½ÃÇà(Resuscitation/procedure not done) 95 4
        Ä¡·áÁö¿¬(Delay in treatment) 84 4
        Åõ¾à°ú½Ç(Medication error) 63 3
        ÀÔ¿øÀûÀÀÀÇ Åð¿øÁ¶Ä¡(failure to admit to hospital) 57 3
        ÇùÁø ȤÀº Àü¿ø°ú½Ç 53 3
        ºÎÀûÁ¤ÇÑ Ã³Ä¡(failure to respond appropriately) 51 2
    • ¼ÕÇØ¹è»ó û±¸ÀÇ °á°ú

      • °á°ú ºñÀ²(%)
        ¼Ò¼Û ½ÃÀÛ ÈÄ È­ÇØ(settled after litigation began) 47
        ¼Ò¼Û ½ÃÀÛ Àü È­ÇØ(settled before litigation began) 29
        ÃëÇÏ(case dropped) 9
        ±â°¢(settled by court) 7(dismissed by action of court)
        ¿ø°íÆÐ¼Ò(judgment for defendant) 6
        ¿ø°í½Â¼Ò(judgment for plaintiff) 1
        ÁßÀç(mediation) 1
  • ¼Ò¾ÆÀÇ ¹«¸­¼Õ»ó Áø´Ü Performance of a decision rule for radiographs of pediatric knee injuries.

    • Although decision rules for radiographs of pediatric knee injuries have been suggested from retrospective studies, prospective evaluations of such rules have been limited.

    • We sought to prospectively assess the performance of a rule in children presenting with acute knee injuries. Eligible participants were children aged 3-18 years with an acute knee injury.

    • The settings for the study were a tertiary pediatric emergency department (ED), a community hospital ED, and a pediatric urgent care center.

    • All of the participants received standard knee radiographs.

    • ½Åü°Ë»ç (Before radiography, each patient was assessed by a pediatrician or pediatric emergency physician for presence of the following)

      • 1) üÁßÁöÅÊ ºÒ°¡(inability to bear weight)

      • 2) ¹«¸­ÀÇ 90µµ ±¸ºÎ¸² ºÒ°¡(inability to flex the knee to 90 degrees)

      • 3) ¾ÐÅë(presence of bony tenderness)

    • The radiographs were interpreted by a radiologist blinded to the study; those with findings reported as consistent with acute fracture were considered positive.

    • A total of 146 patients were enrolled (65% male, mean age 11.6 years).

      • Of these, 15 (10.3%) had a fracture on their radiograph, 6 of which were related to trampoline use.

      • Seventy-seven (53%) were negative for criterion 1 (i.e., able to bear weight immediately after the accident and in the ED), none (0%) of whom had fractures.

        • The negative predictive value of this criterion was 1.0 (95% CI 0.94-1.0).

        • The positive predictive value was 0.22 (95% CI 0.13-0.34).

        • The sensitivity was 1.0 (95% CI 0.82-1.0).

        • The specificity was 0.59 (95% CI 0.50-0.67).

      • Three patients negative for criterion 3 were found to have fractures.

      • The proximal tibia was the most common fracture site (47%).

      • In conclusion, assessment of the ability to bear weight would have decreased the use of radiography by 53% without missing any fractures in our study population. No additional value to the rule was found by adding assessment of the ability to flex the knee or bony tenderness.

    • J Emerg Med.  2005; 28(3):257-61 

  • Âü°í¹®Çå ¹× À¥»çÀÌÆ®

    • ¡¡
  • ±âŸ

    • ¡¡

¡¡

e ÀÇ·á»ç°í¿¬±¸¼Ò ¸ÞÀÏ
º» »çÀÌÆ®ÀÇ Á¤º¸´Â ¹Ì¿Ï¼ºÀ̸ç Âü°í¿ë¿¡ ºÒ°úÇÕ´Ï´Ù.