Introduction: Medical documentation issues play a role in 10-20% of medical malpractice lawsuits. Inaccurate, incomplete, or generic records undermine a physician’s defense and make a plaintiff’s lawyer more likely to take on a case. Despite the frequency of documentation errors in malpractice suits, physicians receive very little education or feedback on their documentation. Our objective in this case series was to evaluate malpractice cases related to documentation to help improve physicians’ documentation and minimize their liability risks. Methods: We used Thomson Reuters Westlaw legal database to identify malpractice cases related to documentation. Common issues related to documentation and themes in the cases were identified and highlighted. Results: We classified cases into the following categories: incomplete documentation; inaccurate text; transcription errors; judgmental language; and alteration of documentation. By evaluating real cases, physicians can better understand common errors of other practitioners and avoid these in their own practice. Conclusion: Emergency physicians can reduce their liability risks by relying less on forms and templates and making a habit of documenting discussions with the patients, recording others’ involvement in patient care (chaperones, consultants, trainees, etc.), addressing others’ notes (triage staff, nurses, residents, etc.), paying attention to accuracy of transcribed or dictated information, avoiding judgmental language, and refraining from altering patient charts.

The 2019 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has dramatically changed the sports landscape, compelling sports medical providers to adapt to evolving scientific discoveries and adopt ever-changing guidelines that protect our athletes, ourselves, and our staff. To best serve our athletes, providers need to be proactive and anticipate potential complications in providing care for athletes as athletic events resume.

Background: Forearm fractures are common presentations to the emergency department (ED), frequently requiring reduction and immobilization. In the pediatric population, procedural sedation is the gold standard to allow for appropriate analgesia, patient compliance, and ultimate successful reduction. Hematoma block is another means of analgesia prior to reduction. Hematoma block, however, is often associated with less pain control, limiting quality of reduction. Procedural sedation increases length of stay, resource allocation, and can be associated with complications. A possible alternative for analgesia to facilitate reduction of forearm fractures in the ED, are ultrasound-guided nerve blocks. This is especially significant for the pediatric population, as non-surgical treatment is frequently the standard of care. Methods: Illustrative case series of three pediatric patients who underwent supraclavicular nerve block for management of distal forearm fracture at a tertiary hospital. Results: The indication for supraclavicular nerve block was unique in all patients; avoiding procedural sedation to monitor Glasgow Coma Scale, avoidance of numerous doses of opioids for analgesia, and parental preference to avoid risks of complications associated with procedural sedation. Each reduction was successful on the first attempt. There was no surgical intervention or adverse events in our patients. Conclusions: Supraclavicular nerve block provided a successful alternative to procedural sedation for reduction, analgesia, without adverse events. It holds exceptional potential as an alternative to procedural sedation in a variety of clinical scenarios.