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

In this case, the patient received instructions to have her wound rechecked in 36 hours. She also received instructions to “return if pain, redness, or warmth developed.” The patient experienced only numbness in her finger, not pain, redness, or warmth. The discharge instructions also told the patient to return if her condition worsened or if any new problems developed, language that included the patient’s new complaints of finger numbness.

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

Discharge instructions do create a duty for patients to follow the recommendations contained within the instructions. While not germane to the standard of care, the Standard of Care Review Panel believed that it was important to note that a patient’s failure to follow discharge instructions does not prevent a patient from filing a lawsuit against the provider. Instead, failure to follow discharge instructions is an example of “contributory negligence” or “comparative negligence,” which are affirmative defenses to a lawsuit. Once an affirmative defense such as contributory or comparative negligence is alleged, a jury must then determine whether the patient’s negligence contributed to the patient’s injury and, if so, what percentage of that injury was attributable to the patient’s own negligence. In many states, patients who cause more than 50% of their injuries are prevented from recovering any damages in a lawsuit.

Conclusions of the Panel

The standard of care does not require that wound dressings be reevaluated on an hourly basis for rebleeding.

There is no reliable and readily available method to determine the pressure inside of a tube gauze dressing. According to literature on the subject, it would be quite difficult to create pressure sufficient to induce finger ischemia inside of a standard tube gauze dressing. The standard of care, therefore, does not require that physicians check the pressure of such dressings after they have been placed.

Placement of dressings is one of many duties that physicians may delegate to other qualified health care providers. While physicians may choose to observe other health care providers during and after performance of these duties, failure to do so is not a breach of the standard of care.

Patient understanding of discharge instructions is an important aspect of follow-up care and good outcomes. When discharge instructions are clear and unambiguous, and when patients have not voiced any questions regarding the instructions, it is reasonable for health care providers to assume that patients have understood those discharge instructions as written.

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