Commentary on "Fatal cardiac air embolism after CT-guided percutaneous needle lung biopsy medical complication or medical malpractice?"
Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › Research › peer-review
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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology |
ISSN | 1547-769X |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 26 Jun 2023 |
Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
- Forensic pathology, Manner of death, Medical malpractice, Systemic air embolism, Cause of death, Medicolegal autopsy, Medical complication
Research areas
ID: 361482455