Maldonado, Graciela

Ultrasound‐guided nerve blocks (USGNBs) are increasingly used in the emergency department (ED) as a safe and effective part of multimodal pain management. Their use has been shown to reduce reliance on opioids and procedural sedation, improve pain scores, and enhance functional outcomes for patients. Additionally, USGNBs in the ED have a complication rate of 0.4%, markedly lower than procedural sedation (4–11%), and they significantly reduce opioid requirements, which is critical considering the current opioid epidemic and the risks of persistent opioid use and overdose. Despite these benefits, relevant concerns about medicolegal liability, informed consent, evolving standards of care, may still influence the adoption of USGNBs in clinical practice. To address these issues, this review examines the legal risks associated with USGNBs by drawing on current clinical literature, closed claims data, and case law. We highlight common adverse events such as peripheral nerve injury and local anesthetic systemic toxicity and assess their legal implications. Potential legal risk including liability related to alternatives like opioid use and procedural sedation, are discussed. While the risk of litigation remains low when best practices are followed, failing to offer a USGNB when clearly indicated may increasingly be viewed as a liability if preventable complications occur. This article aims to provide a practical, interdisciplinary framework, including legal risk assessment, training, credentialing, and risk mitigation, to help clinicians, educators, and hospital administrators safely and confidently integrate USGNBs into ED practice.

Purpose Medical schools must have clear policies and procedures for promotion and tenure (P&T) of faculty. Social media and digital scholarship (SMDS) is an emerging form of scholarship capable of reaching audiences quickly, conveniently, and in a wide variety of formats. It is unclear how frequently SMDS is considered during P&T reviews. The authors sought to determine whether current P&T guidelines at medical schools consider SMDS. Method The authors acquired P&T guidelines from any U.S. Liaison Committee on Medical Education–accredited medical school (or their governing university) that were available online between October and December 2020. Using an iterative process, they developed a bank of keywords that were specific to SMDS or that could include SMDS between October and December 2020. The authors searched each school’s guidelines for each keyword and determined whether the word was being used in relation to crediting faculty for SMDS in the context of P&T procedures. The primary outcome measure was the dichotomous presence or absence of SMDS-specific keywords in each school’s P&T guidelines. Results The authors acquired P&T guidelines from 145/154 (94%) medical schools. After removing duplicate documents, the authors considered 139 guidelines. The keyword bank included 59 terms, of which 49 were specific to SMDS and 10 were umbrella terms that could be inclusive of SMDS. Of the 139 guidelines, 121 (87%) contained at least 1 SMDS-specific keyword. Schools had a median of 3 SMDS-specific keywords in their P&T guidelines. Conclusions As the presence and impact of SMDS increase, schools should provide guidance on its role in the P&T process. Faculty should receive clear guidance on how to document quality SMDS for their promotion file.