List Archives

Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:50:03 EDT

--part1_140.a843b3.2ae0989b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:12:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jmeade@statdoc.com writes:

> case, how can I discuss the impending transfer with him? From a purely 
> practical perspective, and considering the laws in the USA (i.e., EMTALA), 
> it is usually just easier and faster for the patient transfer to be between 
> emergency physicians. I am speaking from the perspective of the EP in a 
> community hospital, transferring to a trauma center.
> 
>   
> 
> Not disagreeing with you, in principle, just perhaps in practical 
> logistics.
> 
>   
> 
> JM 
> 
> 
> 

You've got EMTALA backwards--EMTALA puts the onus on the original institution 
seeking to transfer--if they transfer an emergency case for which they have 
the capability to care for (i.e. if there is a thoracic surgeon there in the 
first institution), then THEY are liable--and, that is regardless of another 
surgeon willing to accept elsewhere--liability does not apply to a possible 
receiving institution under either EMTALA or COBRA--you have no legal 
obligation or are under no urgency to accept such a patient.  t
The onus for keeping that patient alive is on the institution in which that 
patient is located, and on the transferring physician, until in the hands of 
another surgeon elsewhere, SHOULD another surgeon CHOOSE to accept (see the 
last chapter of ATLS).  If you know what EMTALA stands for (originally meant 
to prevent women in labor from being dumped elsewhere when OB's are present 
but just not willing to treat for financial resons, but legally applicable to 
all emergencies), and have ever read the statute, this very common and 
blatant misperception would be avoided
ERF

--part1_140.a843b3.2ae0989b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:12:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jmeade@statdoc.com writes: 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">case, how can I discuss the impending transfer with him? From a purely practical perspective, and considering the laws in the USA (i.e., EMTALA), it is usually just easier and faster for the patient transfer to be between emergency physicians. I am speaking from the perspective of the EP in a community hospital, transferring to a trauma center. 
 
&nbsp; 
 
Not disagreeing with you, in principle, just perhaps in practical logistics. 
 
&nbsp; 
 
JM 
 
 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
You've got EMTALA backwards--EMTALA puts the onus on the original institution seeking to transfer--if they transfer an emergency case for which they have the capability to care for (i.e. if there is a thoracic surgeon there in the first institution), then THEY are liable--and, that is regardless of another surgeon willing to accept elsewhere--liability does not apply to a possible receiving institution under either EMTALA or COBRA--you have no legal obligation or are under no urgency to accept such a patient.&nbsp; t 
The onus for keeping that patient alive is on the institution in which that patient is located, and on the transferring physician, until in the hands of another surgeon elsewhere, SHOULD another surgeon CHOOSE to accept (see the last chapter of ATLS).&nbsp; If you know what EMTALA stands for (originally meant to prevent women in labor from being dumped elsewhere when OB's are present but just not willing to treat for financial resons, but legally applicable to all emergencies), and have ever read the statute, this very common and blatant misperception would be avoided 
ERF</HTML>

--part1_140.a843b3.2ae0989b_boundary--

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

CT vs Angio