4.4 Review

A Review of Forensic Implications of Opioid Prescribing with Examples from Malpractice Cases Involving Opioid-Related Overdose

期刊

PAIN MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 S59-S65

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01129.x

关键词

Chronic Pain; Legal Liability; Medical Malpractice; Methadone; Mortality; Opioid-Related Overdose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To provide a forensic overview and trace common threads among malpractice lawsuits involving patients who overdosed while consuming therapeutic opioids. Methods. One of us (LRW) reviewed 35 medical records of patients with chronic pain who overdosed, 20 of them fatally, while consuming therapeutic opioids, leading to lawsuits against physicians for malpractice. The reviews were requested by plaintiff and defense attorneys from across the United States from 2005 to 2009 to ascertain which drug(s) were primarily responsible for each death and whether the death was due to physician error, patient nonadherence, or some other reason. Complaints against pharmaceutical companies were excluded. Cases were examined for common trends, and comment is offered. Results. Methadone was responsible for the most deaths at 10 (50%), and hydrocodone was second at four deaths (20%) The most common risk factors found in the medical records of decedents included prescriber error in initiating, converting or titrating doses, patient nonadherence to medical instruction, presence of comorbid mental disorders, toxicological presence of benzodiazepines, middle age, and unrelieved pain. This article focuses on examples of physician errors and how they can be prevented. Conclusions. Common trends emerge from medical records of opioid decedents. Patient actions contribute, but physician error, particularly regarding prescribing methadone for pain, is apparent as well. A focused effort to determine the types and causes of common physician errors and how they might be avoided may lead to safer, more effective clinical interventions in the management of pain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据