What is the legal 'standard of medical care' when there is no standard medical care? A survey of the use of home apnea monitoring by neonatology fellowship training programs in the United States.

In treating a patient, a doctor is obliged to use the skill and care that is ordinarily used by reasonably well-qualified doctors in similar cases. In addition, the only way in which a juror may decide whether the defendant used the skill and care which the law required of him or her is from evidence presented by doctors called as expert witnesses (cf Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions). However, what should be done if expert opinions differ concerning the care that is "ordinarily used"? Home apnea monitoring (HAM) is prescribed at times for graduates of neonatal intensive care units despite the fact that indications for its use are not well established and efficacy is completely unknown. The authors attempted to determine standards for HAM as it is currently practiced in neonatology training programs. The primary teaching hospital for each of the 99 neonatology training programs in the United States was identified. Both the medical director (MD) and a neonatal intensive care unit nurse manager (RN) were asked about the use of HAM in their own nursery for four clinical vignettes. Each vignette depicted a 1000-g birth weight infant, currently 7 weeks old and ready for discharge. In three vignettes, the infant had demonstrated no apnea, mild apnea (resolved by 2 weeks of age), or moderate apnea (requiring theophylline therapy at discharge) during the hospital course. In the fourth vignette, the infant had no apnea but was to be discharged home with supplemental oxygen. For 67 of 99 training programs, paired responses of RN managers and MD directors were obtained.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)