Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Review Panel Examines Finger Gangrene Case

By William Sullivan, D.O., JD, FACEP | on August 1, 2011 | 0 Comment
From the College
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Without knowing if a specific duty existed in this case, the Standard of Care Review Panel was unable to comment on whether the physician acted reasonably. However, the Panel did not believe that the standard of care requires that physicians unwrap and reevaluate dressings applied by other allied health professionals. None of the literature the Panel reviewed suggested such management, and several Panel members felt that requiring such a practice would be counterproductive.

You Might Also Like
  • Standard of Care Review Panel: Ruptured Tendon
  • ACEP Review Panel Finds Expert Witness Misled Jury in Pediatric Case
  • ACEP Clinical Policy Review: Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 30 – No 08 – August 2011

Is it proper to discharge a patient with a “snug” tube gauze dressing on the finger?

When tube gauze is placed on a patient’s finger, there is no practical method to measure the pressure generated by that dressing. Regardless of the pressure of the dressing, there is also no way to predict if a patient will develop ischemia at the site of the dressing placement.

The physician who submitted this case for evaluation presented several articles regarding dressing applications and case studies relating to finger ischemia from wound dressings. One article noted that pressure from several different applications of tube gauze did not exceed 40 mm Hg. Another article noted that it would take 13 layers of elastic gauze for internal finger pressures to reach more than 50 mm Hg and that 13 layers of cotton gauze would reach internal pressures of approximately 20 mm Hg.

The Standard of Care Review Panel concluded that the use of tube gauze dressings is appropriate for many types of finger injuries, including avulsion lacerations to the fingertips, such as occurred in this case. Given the available literature on tube gauze dressings, the Review Panel concluded that it would be difficult to generate pressure sufficient to cause finger ischemia when “snug” tube gauze dressings are placed.

Placement of dressings is one of many duties that physicians may delegate to other qualified health care providers.

Does a patient have a duty to follow discharge instructions?

Discharge instructions serve many functions, including providing patients with a tentative diagnosis, instructing patients on further treatment recommendations, and directing patients on when and under what circumstances they should seek further medical care. The Review Panel did agree that certain discharge instructions can be related to a patient’s perceptions. For example, an instruction to return for worsening pain or “new problems” would depend on the patient’s perception of increasing pain or new problems. There are also instructions that do not depend on patient perceptions, such as “have wound rechecked in 36 hours.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Topics: Case PresentationClinical ExamCritical CareDiagnosisEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianExpert WitnessLegalPainTrauma and Injury

Related

  • Why the Nonrebreather Should be Abandoned

    December 3, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Emergency Department

    October 1, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Emergency Department Management of Prehospital Tourniquets

    October 1, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “Review Panel Examines Finger Gangrene Case”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603