Commentary on "Fatal cardiac air embolism after CT-guided percutaneous needle lung biopsy medical complication or medical malpractice?"
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Letter › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Commentary on "Fatal cardiac air embolism after CT-guided percutaneous needle lung biopsy medical complication or medical malpractice?". / Wingren, Carl Johan.
I: Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 26.06.2023.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Letter › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Commentary on "Fatal cardiac air embolism after CT-guided percutaneous needle lung biopsy medical complication or medical malpractice?"
AU - Wingren, Carl Johan
N1 - © 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023/6/26
Y1 - 2023/6/26
N2 - To differentiate between medical malpractice and expected, but rare, medical complication in a medicolegal autopsy context is often difficult. Such an assessment requires knowledge about the clinical practice associated with the procedure at hand, and that findings of the autopsy, including medical relevant information such as patient chart, radiological imaging, and statements from witnesses about the medical procedure itself, provides evidence that substantiate either conclusion. In a case report published in the journal such an assessment is discussed by presenting findings and circumstances surrounding the death of a patient during a percutaneous needle lung biopsy procedure. The authors conclude that the death was not due to medical malpractice. However, in this commentary it is highlighted that the reasoning behind the conclusion needs to be further substantiated.
AB - To differentiate between medical malpractice and expected, but rare, medical complication in a medicolegal autopsy context is often difficult. Such an assessment requires knowledge about the clinical practice associated with the procedure at hand, and that findings of the autopsy, including medical relevant information such as patient chart, radiological imaging, and statements from witnesses about the medical procedure itself, provides evidence that substantiate either conclusion. In a case report published in the journal such an assessment is discussed by presenting findings and circumstances surrounding the death of a patient during a percutaneous needle lung biopsy procedure. The authors conclude that the death was not due to medical malpractice. However, in this commentary it is highlighted that the reasoning behind the conclusion needs to be further substantiated.
KW - Forensic pathology
KW - Manner of death
KW - Medical malpractice
KW - Systemic air embolism
KW - Cause of death
KW - Medicolegal autopsy
KW - Medical complication
U2 - 10.1007/s12024-023-00667-6
DO - 10.1007/s12024-023-00667-6
M3 - Letter
C2 - 37357244
JO - Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology
JF - Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology
SN - 1547-769X
ER -
ID: 361482455