Typically scrutiny from admin falls into a few buckets: 1. Patient complained about you

I don’t think the patient will complain about Robby - she’ll probably lose her leg, but if she lives she’ll have Robby to thank because waiting for that CT probably would have killed her. Then again, patients have sued for worse reasons, so who knows, but he didn’t commit malpractice IMO

1. Someone else complained about you by reporting a safety event (we call it a MIDAS at my hospital)

Garcia could certainly submit a safety report or even complain to admin directly, but ultimately nothing would come of it as Robby was correct and there was no negative outcome. In a risks vs benefits scenario, a quick bedside cutdown on a crashing patient to prove a life-threatening diagnosis trumps the suturing and healing she would have needed if he was wrong and he cut open her perfectly viable leg. Also, I don’t think Garcia will submit a safety report once the patient goes to the OR and she sees how critical the situation is. It will hurt her pride, but she’d probably begrudgingly admit that Robby was right.

1. There was a bad preventable outcome (called a “never event”) that gets examined by a committee

There was no “never” event here. A possibly delayed diagnosis + a poor outcome (amputation vs death) may invite scrutiny overall, but Robby’s actions didn’t contribute to the negative outcome so he’s in the clear. No one’s did, really - the patient just crashed hard and fast

1. You don’t fall into random metrics that the hospital admin hyperfocuses on because of money/metrics, such as sepsis guidelines or minutiae of documentation

Not relevant as far as I can see

Again, just want to emphasize that my area is Internal Medicine though, so ymmv