Archive for the ‘Nursing malpractice’ Category

Why inexperienced people make mistakes

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

A group of residents eagerly perform complex surgery in the middle of the night while the attending surgeons who are supposed to supervise them are happily sleeping at home. Why is this very real scenario a bad idea? Why do interns, residents, nurses, and others make errors that injure patients? The answer lies in learning theory.

The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition used by Pat Benner, a nursing theorist, breaks knowledge into two components: “techne” and “phronesis”. Techne knowledge is book knowledge: the information that is captured from procedural or scientific knowledge. The student must be given safe and clear directions on how to proceed, as there is no previous experience on which to draw. For example, a student nurse I supervised discovered her patient was short of breath. She attributed the symptom to anxiety, talked to the patient about her concerns, and held her hand. A more experienced person would have applied oxygen.

The second kind of knowledge is phronesis, which is acquired through learning in the practice setting. A nurse who makes a series of rapid decisions during an emergency draws on phronesis. The rapid response team members in hospitals are made up of experts who use this kind of knowledge.

The evolution of the expert practitioner passes through stages

The evolution of the expert practitioner passes through stages

Benner’s model of expertise, which is based on the Dreyfus model, describes how an individual may pass through five stages in developing expertise. Not everyone reaches the proficient or expert stage.

The novice rigidly adheres to rules or plans, has little situational perception and can’t make judgments. This individual is learning skills in clinical settings and must be closely supervised when delivering patient care.

The advanced beginner is a new graduate. The person functions with limited situational perception (the ability to put clues together to make decisions) and has difficulty discriminating between what is important.

The competent practitioner can see his or her actions within a broader context, and is capable of making sounder judgments. Conscious deliberate planning takes place along with standardized and routine procedures.

The proficient individual sees the situation holistically rather than in terms of its component parts. This individual more readily makes decisions, perceives differences from the normal pattern of a patient, and functions better with ambiguity. The proficient person has learned from experience and has an easier time making decisions.

The expert practitioner no longer relies on rules, guidelines or maxims, and intuitively grasps what is important in a situation. A registered nurse with expert knowledge may well exceed the knowledge of inexperienced physicians and may save a patient’s life by insisting on evaluation, diagnostic testing, change in medication, or another needed course.

A clinically experienced person enters a new healthcare setting as a new employee without knowledge of the politics, procedures, and policies. It takes time to learn “how we do it here.”

And thus we face the dilemma in health care: an inexperienced person will not learn without the opportunity to do so. He or she has to start somewhere. Yet, we don’t want that person to learn on us, our mother or father or child. When my husband had a triple bypass three months ago, the cardiac surgeon at Johns Hopkins proactively told us that he performed surgery. He said he had people in the operating room helping him, but he did the surgery. We were relieved to hear that.

A fair number of medical or nursing malpractice cases that come into Med League involve errors made by inexperienced people, whether they are new employees or new healthcare practitioners. Here are my suggestions:

  1. Attorneys handling medical or nursing malpractice cases should be careful to determine the level of experience of the defendant. Determine the degree of supervision that should have been provided versus what was actually provided.
  2. Ask about the orientation program the new employee should have received. Determine how much orientation staff agency employees received.
  3. Ask the defendant if he or she sought help. Some of us, whether because of age, culture, or personality, would rather try to solve problems without help. This can be a recipe for disaster.
  4. If you or a loved one needs care, seek the most experienced practitioner or hospital you can find.
  5. If you or a loved one detects the person assigned to your care seems unfamiliar with your needs or medical equipment, insist that individual seek help from a more experienced person. Be an advocate for safety.
  6. If you or a loved one needs surgery in a teaching hospital, insist that the attending physician be present. You may even cross off the consent form that allows residents and interns to perform parts of the surgery.

What do you think? How should inexperienced people learn? Send us a comment.

Parts of this blog post came from Moniaree Parker Jones, “Nursing Expertise: A Look at Theory and the LNCC certification Exam”, Journal of Legal Nurse Consulting, Spring 2007. Other parts came from the School of Hard Knocks.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

Reviewing Medical Records in a Potential Medical Malpractice Claim by Peter Berge Esq.

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Analysis of medical records should be done by a knowledgeable person

Analysis of medical records should be done by a knowledgeable person

Once medical records are in hand, someone has to review them. Who should review them, and in what sequence, depends on numerous factors. In the case of a plaintiff’s attorney, if the attorney has a solid knowledge of the medical issues involved in the case, and particularly when the records are not voluminous, it may make sense for the attorney to initially assess the records. If the attorney has managed several similar claims and is well-versed in the subject matter, the initial evaluation may be all that is needed to determine whether to send the records directly to a testifying expert. Defense counsel or risk management personnel presented with a claim would be well-served by familiarizing themselves with the records prior to sending them out to an expert or consultant.

Even when an attorney has in-depth knowledge of the medical and legal issues involved in a claim, the volume of the records in relation to the attorney’s work load may dictate that a legal nurse consultant (LNC) conduct an initial review, organize the records, create a time line and summarize the issues. Likewise, if the attorney is not very knowledgeable about the medicine involved, it is helpful to have an LNC review the material, perform any medical research needed, and provide a report and recommendation to the attorney. Aside from saving the attorney numerous hours in review and research, this approach has the benefit of readying the records for review by a medical expert. With the records already organized and summarized, the expert or experts may be able to review the material more efficiently, providing some savings to the attorney and client.

Modified from Peter Berge, “Attorney Use of Medical Records in a Medical Malpractice Case”, from Patricia Iyer and Barbara Levin, Medical Legal Aspects of Medical Records, Second Edition, in press.

The Second Edition of this text will be released in March 2010. Want to save money by buying at the prepublication price? Send an email to ML@medleague.com and in the subject line type “Notify me Medical Records 2 E.”

Read more about Med League’s services in medical record analysis.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

Which Medical Records are Crucial to Evaluate a Medical Malpractice Claim? by Peter Berge Esq.

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Which medical records do you need to screen a case?

Which medical records do you need to screen a case?

Several factors should be considered by a plaintiff’s attorney when deciding which records to request while evaluating a potential medical malpractice claim. They include the likelihood that the attorney will pursue the case, the volume (and potential cost) of the records and the available resources (whether those of the attorney or the client) to pay the cost, and the nature of the information that will be required to establish the viability of the case. Be aware of any state-specific laws that regulate what the provider may charge to supply a copy of the chart.

When a specific deviation or a particular type of deviation is alleged or suspected, the reviewer must be familiar with the materials that will be needed to thoroughly assess the claim. If a failure to screen for colon cancer is alleged, for instance, the chart of the primary care physician may be sufficient to reveal the deviation and—if it contains reports from the surgeon and oncologist—to assess causation and injury as well. In cases of delayed diagnosis of breast cancer or negligence in interpretation of prenatal ultrasound studies, it is likely that original images of the diagnostic study in question (such as mammography, breast ultrasound or fetal ultrasound) will be required.

When in doubt, the reviewer should consult with the expert who will ultimately be asked to certify or otherwise assess the validity of the claim or the expected testifying expert or experts. The facts of each case will determine whether full certified copies of all records are needed, or whether abstracts may be sufficient. Full certified copies of medical records relating to where the alleged medical malpractice occurred are needed to complete an evaluation of the merits of a claim.

Another factor for plaintiff’s counsel to take into account is whether or not there is a short statute of limitations. When there remains less than six months to investigate a claim, it may be prudent to err on the side of a wider scope of record requests rather than requesting them piecemeal, except when the expected testifying expert is very clear about what would be necessary to provide a definitive opinion as to deviation and causation. A liability expert will have limited need to review voluminous medical records for care rendered after the care alleged to be negligent. A discharge summary may suffice.

A host of records may be relevant in a specific case. Depending on the circumstances of the claim the attorney should examine

• hospital, emergency room, or emergency center records where the injury was initially treated,
• emergency medical services records (ambulance or medical intensive care unit/MICU),
• hospital records that relate to treatment and surgery,
• records of physicians and specialists who examined or treated the plaintiff before and after the incident,
• outpatient imaging (x-rays, MRI scans, CT scans, and so forth),
• any outpatient labs where blood work or other tests (EMG, EKG, and so forth) were done,
• inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation records including physical therapy, occupational therapy, and so forth,
• outpatient pain treatment centers,
• the actual radiographs and reports that relate to the injury,
• the actual pathology specimens and reports that relate to the injury,
• billing records,
• visiting nurse home care records,
• mental health, substance abuse records and HIV records,
• autopsy report, and
• nursing home records.

Modified from Patricia Iyer and Jane Barone, “Obtaining and Organizing Medical Records”, and Peter Berge, “Attorney Use of Medical Records in a Medical Malpractice Case”, from Patricia Iyer and Barbara Levin, Medical Legal Aspects of Medical Records, Second Edition, in press
The Second Edition of this text will be released in March 2010. Want to save money by buying at the prepublication price? Send an email to ML@medleague.com and in the subject line type “Notify me Medical Records 2E.”

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

When Do You Get Medical Records for a Potential Medical Malpractice Case? by Peter Berge Esq.

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Attorneys should think twice before ordering medical records

Attorneys should think twice before ordering medical records

Unless a potential client presents with medical records in hand, the plaintiff’s attorney’s office considering obtaining records needs to be aware of the investment in time, money, and space. HIPAA-compliant authorizations must be executed, requests sent (and often re-sent), and fees paid. Some healthcare providers are notoriously slow in responding to requests, which requires the law firm to expend additional resources to follow up. It is therefore inefficient to request records until the potential value of the claim has been assessed.

The point at which a plaintiff’s attorney should request medical records depends greatly on the experience and medical knowledge of the reviewer. The great majority of claims:

1. can be determined to be without merit,
2. present insurmountable difficulties in proving causation, or
3. suggest damages insufficient to justify litigation, all based on historical information provided by the potential client with no, or minimal, documentation at hand.

Therefore, a thorough assessment of the above factors should be made before considering requesting medical records.

Ideally, the client interview should reveal whether or not the allegations, if supported by records, would present an actionable claim, and the potential scope of damages. At that point, it is reasonable to request records. In fact, however, several scenarios may exist:

1. First, the initial evaluation presents facts so clear that the attorney feels confident that the case is likely to go forward.
2. Second, the information at hand sounds promising, but specific records are needed to determine the extent to which deviation or causation can be proven.
3. Finally, some cases appear to be a “long shot,” where it seems unlikely that the necessary elements will be proven, but the injury is so serious (and, proportionately, the damages so large) as to justify the investment in requesting and reviewing the records. The reviewer should keep these scenarios in mind when deciding the scope of the initial request for records.

Read more about establishing damages and claims of frivolous lawsuits.

Modified from Peter Berg′e, Esq, “Attorney Use of Medical Records in a Medical Malpractice Case”, Patricia Iyer and Barbara Levin (Editors), Medical Legal Aspects of Medical Records, Second Edition, in press.

The Second Edition of this text will be released in March 2010. Want to save money by buying at the prepublication price? Send an email to ML@medleague.com and in the subject line type “Notify me Medical Records 2E.”

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

Hospital Professional Liability Claims on the Rise by Pat Iyer

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

A retained clamp is a never event

A retained clamp is a never event

This is from Business Insurance, October 20, 2009.

According to the 10th annual Hospital Professional Liability and Physician Liability Benchmark Analysis, the number of hospital professional liability claims is increasing and is expected to increase by 1% per year. The study, released by Aon Corp. and the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management, both based in Chicago, polled more than 1,500 facilities to examine trends in claims and loss costs related to hospital and physician professional liability. The study attributes the rise in claims to the economic downturn, less public sympathy toward health care providers, and a 2008 rule that prevents the Baltimore-based Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from reimbursing hospitals for certain errors known as “never events” because they are considered preventable and should never happen.

“Worsening economic conditions in 2008 may have influenced individuals to assert claims against hospital systems,” Erik Johnson, health care practice leader for Aon’s Actuarial and Analytics Practice and author of the analysis, said in a statement. The frequency of hospital liability claims had been decreasing for about a decade before this year, the study said. Claims severity, which includes indemnity and defense costs, is now projected to increase 4% per year. Hospital loss costs per occupied bed, which is a major part of the total cost of risk, is anticipated to rise 5% in 2010, according to the study.

One-quarter of all claims and about 24% of hospitals’ professional liability costs are connected to hospital-acquired conditions such as infections, medication errors, objects left in the body after surgery and pressure ulcers, the study said. The market for health care industry professional liability coverage likely will remain stable for the rest of the year, but pricing is expected to increase in 2010, Aon said.

Pat says:
The AON study points out that ¼ of claims are related to “never events”. The never events defined by CMS are deemed outcomes that should not occur. The unwillingness of public and private payors to pay for what is defined as bad care leading to a bad outcome puts financial teeth behind efforts to improve patient safety and care. The definition of these outcomes clarifies concepts of liability. It becomes easy for the medical malpractice attorney to argue that there was a deviation from the standard of care when such an outcome occurs. Who could argue that operating on the wrong limb is acceptable or that leaving a clamp behind is okay? The AON study is important in that it shows the shifting trends. Those in hospitals who are reluctant to implement change, or take a strong position with recalcitrant staff who don’t want to change, need to know that the financial consequences of unsafe patient care will continue. The AON study confirms what we see in the nursing and medical malpractice world-seriously injured people wanting answers to questions and for the system to change so that someone else is not hurt.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

On Participating in a Webinar by Pat Iyer

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009
Woman watching webinar

Woman watching webinar

As much as 50% of programs that would have in the past been presented in a classroom are now being offered through webinars, I recently learned at the National Speakers Association annual meeting in Phoenix in July. Webinars are convenient ways to share information with geographically diverse groups. A variety of formats may be used to deliver the material, and varying levels of audience participation may occur.

Within the last month, I participated in two webinars directed to attorneys.  The experiences were remarkably different. In the first program, presented by the Aletheia Institute, I was a speaker presenting concepts related to pain assessment. The program was being broadcast by a live video feed, with speakers in four locations across the US. I was supposed to go to a local videoconferencing site located at a court reporter’s office.  The arrival time was set for 2:15 PM for a 3 PM program. The 45 minutes was to have been spent learning and rehearsing how to use the technology. Unfortunately, there was a communication mix up regarding who was to supply the laptop computer to use for the program. When I realized I needed to bring my computer, I raced home to retrieve it. My car’s GPS did not recognize the address of the court reporter, and I lost more minutes getting directions from yahoomaps. The court reporter’s office was farther than I expected and traffic was maddeningly slow.

When I arrived at the court reporter’s office at 2:55 PM, I was rattled. In a space of 10 minutes, I had to learn how to use the technology with a less than intuitive remote device, figure out where to place my notes, get a clock set up, and try to calm down. The wisdom of having plenty of time to get used to the equipment was painfully evident to me, but hopefully not to the audience.

My second experience took place in my office. The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education webinar consisted of me moderating a program on liability issues affecting the emergency department. I reformatted, edited, and illustrated the Powerpoint presentations prepared by the speakers. We had a dry run a week before the program to learn how to handle the technology. There was no video component to the program.  The three speakers and I talked over the phone to the listeners/viewers. Each speaker controlled the advance of the Powerpoint slides. We could communicate with a chat panel so I could advise each speaker of the remaining time left to keep them on track.
Two webinars and two different presentation formats made these two very different experiences. My advice to people who have the opportunity to participate in, moderate or put on a webinar, is to be allow time to become very familiar with the technology. Practice, practice, practice, and have another person to act as an assistant. The video component of a live program can be a powerful enhancement to learning, but also captures all of the foibles of a less than perfect presentation. Learn as much as you can about webinars, how to make the most out of them, and how your participation can be enhanced. Two resources I recommend are:

Great Webinars: How to create interactive learning that is captivating, informative and fun by Cindy Clay
6 Weeks To A Great Webinar: Generate Leads And Tell Your Story To The World (Paperback) by W. Wayne Turmel
I heard W. Wayne Turmel speak at the National Speakers Association; he was outstanding.

And most of all, recognize the staying power of this type of education and take advantage of the programs that are of interest to you.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

New NJ Bill Mandates Reporting of Medical Errors by Pat Iyer

Monday, September 28th, 2009

On August 31, 2009, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine signed into law an act requiring hospitals to publicly report 14 serious medical errors. One of the first laws of its kind in the United States, this legislation also bars hospitals in New Jersey from seeking reimbursement for costs associated with the following “never events” for which Medicare does not allow payment: surgery on the wrong side, body part or person; the wrong surgery; air embolism; transfusion reaction; and a foreign object left inside a patient during a procedure. Commencing in November 2009, New Jersey’s annual hospital performance report—published by the state Department of Health and Senior Services—will include data on the number and rate of the following serious indicators of patient safety in each of the hospitals in the state:

1. Foreign body left during procedure;
2. Iatrogenic pneumothorax (collapsed lung caused by a medical provider);
3. Postoperative hip fracture;
4. Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma;
5. Postoperative deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (leg or lung clot);
6. Postoperative sepsis (infection);
7. Postoperative wound dehiscence (opening up of the incision);
8. Accidental puncture or laceration;
9. Transfusion reaction;
10. Birth trauma;
11. Obstetric trauma-vaginal delivery with instrument;
12. Obstetric trauma-vaginal delivery without instrument;
13. Air embolism; and
14. Surgery on wrong side, wrong body part or wrong person, or wrong surgery performed on a patient.

Currently, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services publishes a hospital performance report each year on hospital-specific treatment of heart attacks, pneumonia and heart failure, and prevention of surgical infections. The state health department also issues a report on indicators of quality of inpatient care used to measure the performance of the state’s hospitals in treating common medical conditions. According to New Jersey Commissioner of Health and Senior Services Heather Howard, “We know that public reporting of hospital performance improves quality and promotes excellence in patient safety—as we have seen with dramatic decreases in cardiac surgery deaths.” Publicizing more patient-safety data may assist patients and their families to make informed decisions about their care and the hospitals they choose.
An interesting aspect of the new law is likely to be the determination of whether a cost or expense is associated with any of the “never events” for which payment will be denied by third parties. This factor is anticipated to generate further debate, and many other states are likely to undertake similar efforts to publicize and restrict reimbursement associated with medical errors in hospitals.

On a Federal level, payment implications began on October 1, 2008 for the conditions identified in both the IPPS FY (fiscal year) 2008 and 2009 final rule. For discharges occurring after that date, there is no reimbursement for charges associated with the hospital acquired conditions. Balance billing is prohibited, that is, hospitals may not bill patients for the unreimbursed charges.

Plaintiff attorneys are increasingly focusing on these “never events” as they take the position that they constitute medical or nursing malpractice. It is an easy argument to make: the government says these things should never happen, therefore, if they did, someone did something wrong. Proving liability, proximate cause, and damages continues to be essential to winning a suit. The “never events” may provide an easy roadmap to do so.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

Emergency Department Mistakes by Pat Iyer

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Errors in the Emergency Department

Errors in the Emergency Department

Most of the mistakes in the emergency department (ED) that have the potential to compromise patient safety are caused by human error, according to a study published online September 18 in BMC Emergency Medicine. “[EDs] are challenging hospital settings with regard to patient safety. There is an increased sense of urgency to take effective countermeasures in order to improve patient safety,” Marleen Smits, MD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, and colleagues write. “This can only be achieved if interventions tackle the dominant underlying causes.”

The aim of this study was to examine the nature and causes of unintended events in EDs and the relationship between type of event and causal factor structure. The study evaluated medical errors in the EDs of 10 hospitals in the Netherlands (1 university hospital, 3 tertiary teaching hospitals, and 6 general hospitals) for 8 to 10 weeks. ED staff members were asked to report all unintended events, no matter how trivial or commonplace, that could have harmed or did harm a patient. A total of 522 events were reported, ranging from 46 to 71 per ED, for an average of 52 reports. Most of the reports (85%) were made by nurses; resident physicians or consultants reported 13% of the unintended events, and clerical staff reported 2%. The reporter was directly involved in 83% of the unintended events. Most occurred during daytime hours (44%); 34% occurred during evening and night, and for 22% of the unintended events, the time of occurrence was unknown or unspecified by the reporter.

Most errors occurred during medical examinations or lab tests (36%). More than half of the unintended events (56%) had consequences for the patient, and in 45% of these instances, the patient suffered some inconvenience, such as prolonged waiting time. One third of patients received suboptimal care, such as a delay in starting antibiotic treatment. The consequences of error were more severe in the 8% of patients who required an extra intervention, the 6% of patients who suffered pain, and the 3% of patients who suffered a physical injury, Dr. Smits and colleagues write.

Most root causes of error were human (60%), followed by organizational (25%) and technical (11%) causes. Nearly half of the root causes could be attributed to other departments either in or outside of the hospital. In citing limitations to their study, the investigators note that, because the reporting was not anonymous, it is possible that certain mistakes were underreported. “This may have biased the results towards the reporting of less significant events, events without consequences for the patient, and errors originating in other departments, because these are ’safer’ to report.”

In addition, most errors were reported by nurses, and therefore the study results give information about events that are mainly related to nursing care and less to care by residents and specialists in the ED. Although the majority of errors had no consequences for the patient or resulted in only minor inconveniences, their accumulated effect on patient well-being is likely to be large, the authors write. They conclude: “Event reporting gives insight into diverse unintended events. The information on unintended events may help target research and interventions to increase patient safety. It seems worthwhile to direct interventions on the collaboration between the ED and other hospital departments.”
BMC Emerg Med. Published online September 18, 2009.

Comments: The results of the study are intriguing. Are nurses really making the majority of errors, or are they more likely to report errors than physicians?

I am moderating a webinar on the topic of emergency department liability on September 30. Our panel consists of an emergency department physician, an emergency department nurse, and a plaintiff’s attorney. We’ll share case studies and discuss what makes a valid case for the plaintiff or an easily defensible case. Join us!

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

How a medical malpractice suit can make a difference by Pat Iyer

Thursday, September 10th, 2009
The story of Josie King

The story of Josie King

Why do people file medical malpractice suits? One reason is to get answers about what happened to result in the injury. Another is to prevent the same thing from happening to another person. Although risk managers, practitioners, and administrators may make changes after a bad outcome has occurred, it is not often that the plaintiff gets the satisfaction of knowing that. It is even rarer the terms of a settlement to solidify a plan to share the details of a medical tragedy.

A recent Oregon case shows the power of sharing a lesson that will protect other patients. The plaintiff was an 8-month-old infant who entered a hospital for removal of a cyst that extended through his nose to his brain. The surgery was without complications. After surgery, the infant had fevers, pneumonia, and showed signs of a possible cerebral spinal fluid leak. The discharging physician was a first year resident; the attending neurosurgeon did not see the infant on the day he was discharged. Eight hours after discharge, the infant was taken to the emergency department of another hospital because he was vomiting and lethargic. The emergency department physician called the defendant hospital and was advised that the infant was probably having a medication reaction. The parents returned eleven hours later, when their child was profoundly ill. There was no clear evidence of a systemic infection and possible brain damage.

The infant was emergently transported back to the defendant hospital. He was diagnosed with meningitis, brain damage, and organ failure and suffered a stroke. He requires a ventilator twelve to twenty hours a day, is tube fed, and without effective use of his legs or left arm. He is profoundly developmentally delayed and does not talk. A $12.2 million settlement was reached. The hospital also committed to use the case as a teaching example for its residents for the next ten years and to provide certification of this to the plaintiff’s parents each year from the president of the university.

Source: Lewis Laska, “Infant discharged following brain surgery without being seen by anyone other than junior resident”, Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements, and Experts, February 2009, page 19

The power of sharing the lessons learned from a tragedy of this nature is huge. Unfortunately, it is rare for plaintiffs to achieve this kind of gain. I can think of another case – one we handled at Med League-in which this occurred. I was involved in a Philadelphia case of a young man who developed leg pain and shortness of breath on the day of discharge. The nurse did not inform the physicians, and the man was discharged via telephone order. He collapsed at home and died from a pulmonary embolism. As part of the settlement, the hospital made a policy that a patient had to be seen in person on the day of discharge. They also agreed to use this case in teaching each group of interns and residents.

Anyone not familiar with the story of Josie King, an 18-month-old child who died as a result of medication error, should visit the Josie King Foundation . I heard Sorrel King, Josie’s mother, talk three years ago. Her story lingers. Sorrel took the settlement money provided by Johns Hopkins, the hospital where the incident occurred, and put it back into patient safety efforts. Her work has saved lives of people all over the world. A new book pictured above, has just been released, which describes her crusade.

The key to educate, change, and inspire healthcare professionals with lessons learned so that deaths and injuries make a difference in daily practice.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?

How much error can we tolerate in health care? by Pat Iyer

Monday, August 31st, 2009

Swiss Cheese Model

Swiss Cheese Model

The Joint Commission, one of the preeminent bodies that accredits a wide variety of healthcare organizations, is shining a spotlight on the critical role of leadership in reaching a zero-defect level of safety. Although other industries, such as aviation, manufacturing, and energy, have developed safety interventions needed to reach a zero-defect level, health care has not been as successful. We have an incredibly complex system with multiple opportunities for error. I envision patient safety as resting above a safety net. The holes in the safety net range from small to wide.

The Swiss Cheese Model is another way to view patient safety. In James Reason’s model, the holes line up in the system; a patient passes through and is injured. When a series of errors occur, if anyone along the chain of events had done something different, the patient would not have been injured. Those of us who work in the medical malpractice arena can think of cases where this unfortunate cascade of errors has occurred. For example, I worked on a nursing malpractice case involving a man who received the wrong type of blood. Another patient and he had the same name; a mix up of identity occurred. The admissions clerk, laboratory technician, unit secretary, hematologist and several registered nurses were part of the chain. The blood bag was not checked at the bedside with the patient’s identification band; he died as a result of receiving the incorrect blood type.

What does the concept of zero-defects mean in practical terms? I am reminded of the reaction I saw when a surgeon told a patient there was a 1 in 100 risk of a certain complication occurring in the operating room. The patient asked, “What number am I in your total of 100?” It is only human nature to want the other guy to be the one case while we cling to the 99.

Attention to the goal of zero-defects also reveals what risk managers and family members fear: some patient injuries are not reported, starting with the person directly involved in the incident and ranging through leadership. The Joint Commission acknowledged this reality: “Leaders must consistently make safety a top priority in their decision-making. Safety must be supported at all levels of the organization and by both administrative and clinical leaders. Unfortunately, patients and health care staff may perceive a considerable difference between what leaders say and what is actually occurring—for example, when leaders do not support the reporting or managing of errors for fear of litigation.” In reality, it it’s the hiding and cover-up that sends some patients to plaintiff attorneys so that they can get answers to the question of what went wrong.

I recall sitting in a hospital Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee meeting some years ago while the director of nursing had to explain each of the 6 medication error incident reports that had occurred that month in a 600 bed hospital. The physician said, “I want there to be zero errors!” I pulled the vice president of nursing aside and said, “We’re not getting accurate reporting. Statistically, there should be a much larger number of incident reports.” She disagreed. However, the nursing department disciplined nurses who made errors. The policy was to terminate the nurse after three errors had occurred. Not surprisingly, nurses were reluctant to report errors, as they functioned within a culture of fear.

That culture of fear is being replaced by a culture that focuses on just handling of staff after an error occurs. The Joint Commission addressed this inherent conflict in the new Sentinel Event Alert: “Actions taken in response to adverse events can be administrative or disciplinary as well as safety-related. These actions must not only be fair, they must be perceived to be fair; otherwise, future reporting of events may be discouraged. Such an approach is consistent with a culture of safety and is symbolic of a ‘just’ culture. A just culture is not wholly blame-free. It is one that has a clear and transparent process for evaluating errors and separating egregious unsafe acts from the small errors that people make every day, because we are human. The large errors are considered for disciplinary action with a set of guidelines that are applied equitably and consistently across all groups within the organization. It is the small errors that should not be cause for blame or punishment but should rather be recognized as important sources of information about system vulnerabilities.”

Leaders have critical roles to play in supporting staff who report errors and in making the changes needed to plug holes. The Joint Commission’s Alert is a needed directive to add more light to a subject that can hide in the shadows of the corner.

[Post to Twitter]  [Post to Yahoo Buzz]  [Post to Delicious]  [Post to Digg]  [Post to Reddit]  [Post to StumbleUpon]  What are these?