Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T22:08:57.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Law Involving Base-Station Contact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Carol J. Shanaberger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Although general discussions of legal claims against emergency medical services (EMS) have been published, there is no literature that examines legal claims that specifically have involved base-station contact for direct medical control.

Methods:

A review of case law through July 1994 was conducted to identify cases that involved radio communications between a prehospital provider and a physician or nurse under the direction of a physician.

Results:

Only eight cases could be identified. Each case is described in terms of the event, selected pertinent legal issues, and the opinions rendered by the court.

Conclusions:

These few cases illustrate some important observations that indicate that there will occur an increase in the detail, role delineation, and clarification of the prehospital providers, medical directors, base-station physicians, and others who provide direct medical control to prehospital EMS providers. These findings have important implications for EMS medical directors.

Keywords

base stationdirect medical controlemergency medical serviceslitigationnegligenceon-line medical controlwrongful death
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 75 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pozen, M, D'Agostino, RB, Sytkawski, PA, et al. : Effectiveness of a prehospital medical control system: An analysis of the interaction between emergency room physician and paramedic. Circulation 1981;63:442–447.Google Scholar
2. Thompson, S, Schriver, J: A survey of prehospital care paramedic/physician communication for Multnomah County, Oregon. Journal of Emergency Medicine 1984;l:421–428.Google Scholar
3. Soler, JM, Montes, MF, Egol, AB, et al. : The 10-year malpractice experience of a large urban EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 14:982–985.Google Scholar
4. Goldberg, RJ, Zautaketh, JL, Koenigsberg, MD, et al. : A review of pre-hospital care litigation—in a large metropolitan EMS system. Ann of Emerg Med 1990;19:557–561.Google Scholar
5. Casa v Gilliam, 869 SW 2d 671 (Tex App -San Antonio 1994).Google Scholar
6. 585 A 2d 841 (Md App 1991); 622 A2d 128 (Md 1993).Google Scholar
7. The telephone patch linked the paramedic with both the Adult Emergency Room and the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. However, there was no evidence the ED physician was involved in the conversation. Davis v Johns Hopkins Hospital, 622 A2d 128, 132 (1993).Google Scholar
8. Ibid. The patient was transported prone on the lap of a state trooper. According to the decision, the patient could only be ventilated with a “plastic airway device”; an “ambu-bag” could not be used because the trooper had to restrain the patient with one hand and the patient's respiratory rate was too rapid. The patient apparently was still in status seizures.Google Scholar
9. The parents also claimed JHH staff should have met them on the helipad and given him treatment elsewhere, even if there was no bed available. The court disagreed. Davis, 622 A2d 128 at 136.Google Scholar
10. 622 A2d l28 (Md 1993).Google Scholar
11. 637 S2d 522 (La App 4th Cir 1993).Google Scholar
12. Ibid., 527.Google Scholar
13. 259 Ga. 759, 386 S.E.2d 120 (1989), 409 S.E.2d 501 (Ga. 1991); cert denied 400 U.S. 914 (1992).Google Scholar
14. 409 S.E.2d 501 (Ga 1991), cert, denied 499 U.S. 914 (1992).Google Scholar
15. 774 F Supp 510 (NDI11 1991); 982 F2d 230 (7th Cir 1992).Google Scholar
16. 42 USCA, Section 1395dd(b).Google Scholar
17. Illinois EMS Act, 111 RevStat 11 1/2, S5501 et seq.Google Scholar
18. 982 F2d 230 (7th Cir 1992).Google Scholar
19. Johnson v University of Chicago Hospitals Case, No. 91-3587, 19 March 1993, Amendment to opinion issued 28 December 1992.Google Scholar
20. 982 F.2d 230 232 (9th Cir 1992).Google Scholar
21. 825 F.Supp 153(DC Wyo 1992).Google Scholar
22. Emergency Detention Statute, 325-10-101, et seq.Google Scholar
23. 602 N.E.2d 570 (Mass, 1992).Google Scholar
24. Ibid, at page 572.Google Scholar
25. Ibid.Google Scholar
26. 524 A.2d 18 Del Supr. (1987). 565A. 2d 917, Del. Supr. (1989).Google Scholar
27. Plaintiffs expert, a family physician, claimed the paramedics were reckless in their transport of Lhe patient across the river. 565 A.2d 917,920.Google Scholar
28. 565 A.2d 917 Del. Supr. (1989).Google Scholar
29. 383 So.2d 1325 (Ala. 1991).Google Scholar
30. Ibid, at page 1327.Google Scholar
31. Hospital Authority of Gwinnett County v Jones, Case No. 46956, Brief of Appellee, page 16.Google Scholar