A doctor who tied a dementia patient to a bed for over 90 hours, causing a pulmonary embolism, maintains probation on appeal

A doctor in his 50s who was indicted on charges of causing a pulmonary embolism by restraining a dementia patient to a bed for over 90 hours was sentenced to probation in the appeals court.

Incheon District Court Criminal Appeal Division 4-3 (Chief Judge Shin Ji-eun) announced on the 7th that A (55), a psychiatrist at an Incheon hospital who was indicted on charges of professional negligence causing manslaughter, was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 2 years of probation, the same as the original trial, and maintained 80 hours of community service.

Mr. A was indicted on charges of causing pulmonary embolism in a hospital in Namdong-gu, Incheon from August 3 to 10, 2018 by having B (79), a patient diagnosed with cerebral hemorrhage and dementia, whom he was the attending physician, tied to a bed for a long period of time without sufficient precautions.

It was found that Mr. A entrusted the restraints to a nurse or care worker without individual prescriptions or instructions because he had received consent from Mr. B's family to use a physical restraint.

When using a physical restraint belt, vital signs must be checked every hour, and positions must be changed at least every 2 hours or blood clot prevention measures must be taken, but Mr. A did not follow these instructions.

As a result of the investigation, Mr. B's wrists and ankles were tied to the bed with strings for 96 hours out of a total of 154 hours from August 3 to 10 of the same year. For 28 hours, the patient's movements were restricted due to 'table obsession', where the right side of the table and the bed railing were tied with string.

It was revealed that he was tied up for a whopping 39 hours from the evening of August 5th to the morning of the 7th when he had no guardian.

In the end, Mr. B, who was obsessed for a long time, was diagnosed with pulmonary embolism accompanied by general cyanosis and loss of consciousness on the morning of August 10th.

During the trial, Mr. A denied the charges, saying, "Physical restraint was an unavoidable measure for patient safety," and "'Table compulsion' cannot be seen as a compulsion to directly restrict the body."

However, the appellate court pointed out, "Fixing the table to the bed blocks the patient's ability to get up or turn over, so it has the same behavior-restricting effect as tying up the body," and added, "If you look at the time of direct compulsion alone, it is 96 hours."

He then stated the reason for dismissing the appeal, saying, "It is difficult to recognize that these measures are unavoidable and universal medical measures," and "It is difficult to say that the original trial's sentence was overly severe."