Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Purpose: The clinical characteristics of headaches vary by age among pediatric patients. Red flag signs are key factors in differentiating secondary headaches and should be considered in the context of the patient’s age. Methods: This study involved a retrospective chart review of pediatric patients presenting with headaches. Patients were categorized by age into three groups: pre-school age (under 6 years), school-age (6 to 12 years), and adolescence (over 12 years). Demographic data, headache characteristics, laboratory findings, and neuroimaging results were evaluated. Overall, 17 potential red flags were assessed. Results: A total of 687 patients were included, of whom 102 were of pre-school age, 314 were school-aged, and 271 were adolescents. The frequency of overweight/obesity was found to increase with age. The pre-school age group experienced a shorter period from symptom onset to presentation and a briefer duration of pain. In contrast, adolescents displayed a longer period from symptom onset, a greater frequency of headaches occurring at least three times per week, and a higher rate of headache episodes lasting over 3 days. Children under 6 years old were more commonly diagnosed with secondary headaches than older children. Across age groups, secondary headaches were suspected when systemic symptoms such as fever were present, when the headache had a sudden onset, when the patient responded poorly to medication, or when abnormal neurological signs and symptoms were observed. Conclusion The clinical features of pediatric patients vary by age group. Clinicians should consider red flag signs in the context of patient age and individual characteristics.

Purpose: Electroencephalography (EEG) is useful for clarifying the association between cortical activity and cognitive processes in children. We investigated whether EEG abnormalities were correlated with developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID) in the absence of clinical seizures. Methods: We retrospectively identified 166 children with DD/ID who underwent EEG at Pusan National University Hospital between January 2011 and December 2021. We compared clinical characteristics and test results between those with normal and those with abnormal EEGs. Additionally, we analyzed EEG abnormalities in relation to neurodevelopmental disorders, specifically autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Results: Of the 166 patients, 39 (23.5%) displayed abnormal EEGs, while 127 (76.5%) had normal EEGs. Of the former, 25 (64.1%) patients exhibited epileptiform discharges, including 22 (56.3%) with focal and three (7.7%) with generalized discharges. Focal discharges most frequently affected the central area (35.9%). Twenty patients (51.3%) exhibited rhythmic slowing patterns. Epilepsy diagnoses were significantly more common among patients with abnormal EEGs (n=8, 20.5%) than among those with normal EEGs (n=9, 7.1%) (P<0.001). Of 22 patients with ASD, five (12.8%) had abnormal EEGs. Of 13 patients with ADHD, five (36.4%) had abnormal EEGs, all with epileptiform discharges. Two patients with ASD and two with ADHD exhibited rhythmic slowing. Abnormal EEG findings were significantly more common among those with genetic abnormalities compared to genetically normal patients (26 vs. 13, P=0.017). Conclusion EEG represents a potential screening tool for children with DD. Abnormal EEG findings are associated with increased epilepsy risk, informing diagnosis and treatment planning.