Periprocedural pulmonary aspiration: An analysis of medical malpractice cases and alleged causative factors

Rationale Aims and Objectives Pulmonary aspiration is a feared complication of anaesthesia that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Within the small existing body of literature on medical malpractice claims related to periprocedural aspiration, very little information is available regarding the case‐specific factors that were alleged to contribute to each aspiration event. Methods This study searched an extensive nationwide database of medical malpractice claims and identified 43 relating to periprocedural pulmonary aspiration. Results The most common mechanism of causation cited in these claims (37%) was the failure to secure the airway with an endotracheal tube (ETT) when an elevated aspiration risk existed, most commonly because endotracheal intubation was not originally selected as part of the anaesthetic plan. The second most common alleged category of causation (33%) was the failure to perform a proper rapid‐sequence induction and/or place a nasogastric tube (NGT) for decompression prior to induction. An equal amount of cases resulted in defendant versus plaintiff verdicts (44.2% each), while a settlement was reached in the remaining 11.6% of cases. Conclusion These findings are generalizable to clinical practice improvement on a broader scale. They demonstrate the need to develop reliable, high‐sensitivity tests for detecting elevated risk before clinicians can be expected to take special steps to protect susceptible patients, and they also show that medical malpractice can be alleged because of failure to uphold currently accepted standards of care even when the published evidence for those standards is weak. This study demonstrates that careful review of medical malpractice litigation can elucidate common contributory factors and facilitate improvements in clinical practice and decision‐making.