Abstract
Introduction Medical professionals other than anesthesiologists at times administer sedation for procedures. The aim of this study is to identify the adverse events, and their root causes, resulting in medical malpractice litigation in the United States related to procedural sedation administration by non-anesthesiologists. Methods Cases containing the phrase “conscious sedation” were identified using Anylaw, an online national legal database. Cases were excluded if the primary allegation was not malpractice related to conscious sedation or the listing was a duplicate. Results Of the 92 cases identified, 25 remained after application of exclusion criteria. The procedure type most commonly involved was dental (56%), followed by gastrointestinal (28%). The remaining procedure types were urology, electrophysiology, otolaryngology, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Discussion By reviewing malpractice case narratives and outcomes, this study offers insight and opportunities for practice improvement among non-anesthesiologists providing conscious sedation for procedures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
