10 free EMT practice questions: Medical, Legal & Ethical Responsibilities

Revoked consent: when a patient agrees to care and then takes that agreement back. Nobody here agreed to care and then withdrew it. The patient is a minor, and the parents have not been reached.

Informed consent: about explaining the risks and the other choices before a patient agrees to a treatment. Informed consent does not tell you who can say yes for a minor.

Expressed consent: D does not work because a 15-year-old cannot legally consent to their own care. Expressed consent needs a patient who can say yes for themselves, so the patient's agreement does not settle anything here.

Abandonment: when a provider leaves a patient without handing care off to someone with equal or higher training. Nothing here says the provider left the patient. This lawsuit is about the care the provider gave.

Assault: putting a person in fear of immediate harm. Assault has nothing to do with whether the care met the standard of care. A lawsuit over a patient's death turns on the standard of care.

Malpractice: a professional doing something they should not have done. Negligence is failing to do something you should have done. Either way, what the family has to prove in court is negligence: duty, breach, causation, and harm.

Expressed consent: what you get from every alert, competent patient. The patient says yes, nods, or holds out an arm for the blood pressure cuff. Expressed consent needs the patient to communicate a decision, and this patient is unconscious.

Informed refusal: applies when an alert, competent patient understands the risks and turns down care. Informed refusal is what protects you when you leave someone at home against advice. A refusal requires decision-making capacity, and an unconscious patient does not have capacity. Nobody has refused care here, and no advance directive is available.

Parental consent: Parental or guardian consent is what you get for a minor, because the law gives the decision to the parent. Nothing in this question describes a minor or a parent or guardian on scene. This patient cannot consent, and nobody is present who can consent for the patient. Implied consent covers exactly this situation.

That the patient has a family member present to witness the refusal: A witness makes your documentation stronger and helps if the call is ever questioned later. The witness does not have to be a family member. The patient's capacity is what makes the refusal valid, not who is standing in the room.

That the patient has signed a general liability waiver: Some patients ask to sign paperwork, or offer to. An EMS refusal is not built on a general liability waiver. The refusal has to be informed and documented after you explain the risks. A signature is documentation. The patient's right to refuse comes from having capacity, not from the form.

That local protocol allows refusals for that specific chief complaint: Protocol tells you when to consult medical direction on a refusal. A patient who is alert, oriented, and understands the risks can refuse no matter what the complaint is.

Withhold resuscitation based on the family's statement: This family only says a DNR exists, and nobody can produce the signed document. Withholding resuscitation takes a proper, signed DNR produced and checked on scene. Acting on the family's statement alone could deny the patient care the patient is entitled to.

Call medical control and follow whatever the family ultimately decides: B does not work because it hands the decision to the family. Following whatever the family decides puts the family's wishes in place of the medical and legal rules, and family wishes cannot make up for a missing DNR document.

Wait until the document is found before beginning any care: Waiting to start care until the document turns up loses minutes in a cardiac arrest, and every minute of delay lowers the chance of survival. Start CPR now and have someone look for the document at the same time.

That the EMT specifically intended to harm the patient: Intent to harm is what you have to prove for an intentional tort, like assault or battery. Negligence never requires intent, only a failure to meet the standard of care through carelessness.

That the EMT had a prior history of disciplinary action: A history of discipline might make the EMT look careless. Prior discipline is not one of the four elements. A disciplinary record also does not prove this breach caused harm on this call.

That a supervisor was physically present during the call: Whether a supervisor was on scene has nothing to do with the four elements. A supervisor being there does not prove duty, breach, causation, or damages.

What the most experienced EMT in the department would have done: The most experienced EMT in the department is a good person to learn from. Holding everyone to the best provider would make ordinary competence negligent. A new EMT could never meet that standard. A 20-year veteran and a 6-month EMT with the same certification are held to the same reasonable EMT standard.

Whatever the patient requests, regardless of protocol: A competent patient can refuse care, and you have to respect that refusal. A patient cannot make you do something outside your scope, against protocol, or clinically wrong. "The patient asked me to" is not a defense. Consent decides whether you can act at all. The standard of care decides how you have to act once you do.

Whatever produces the fastest transport time for the patient: Fast transport matters for a patient who is truly time critical. Speed is one part of the standard of care, not the standard itself. Treating speed as the goal leads to skipped assessments, unsecured patients, unsafe driving, and crashes. A reasonably prudent EMT will sometimes take longer to do the job safely.

Expressed consent: what an alert patient with decision making capacity gives by saying yes or nodding to care. This patient is unresponsive and cannot agree to anything.

Involuntary consent: care given under a legal authority instead of the patient's agreement, such as a court order or a mental health hold. This patient is under no hold and no court order. An unresponsive adult with nobody to speak for them is covered by implied consent.

No treatment without consent: An unresponsive patient is not refusing care, and a refusal from an alert patient with capacity is what stops treatment. Being unresponsive with nobody to speak for them is exactly what triggers implied consent, so treatment does not wait on anyone's permission.

Implied consent: for a patient who is unresponsive or too impaired to agree out loud. The law assumes a reasonable person would want emergency care. This patient is alert, oriented, and saying yes, so nothing needs to be assumed.

Involuntary consent: covers care that a legal order allows over the patient's objection, like a court order or a mental health hold. This patient is not refusing anything, and no legal order is involved.

Minor/parental consent: Minor or parental consent applies when the patient is a child and a parent or guardian has to agree to care for the child. This patient is an adult agreeing for themselves.

Duty to act and damages only, since no breach occurred: Duty and damages with no breach would describe a call where the EMT met the standard of care and the patient was harmed anyway. Here the EMT failed to reassess the airway after a medication known to cause respiratory depression. Failing to reassess is a breach of the standard of care.

Breach and causation only, since duty was already established at dispatch: Breach and causation are both part of this scenario. Damages are also a required element, and this patient was harmed. All four elements have to be present together, not just two of them.

Negligence cannot apply to an EMT acting within their scope of practice: Acting within your scope of practice does not protect you from negligence. Negligence still applies when you breach the standard of care inside that scope.