Articles Tagged with Hospital Negligence

In our last post, we highlighted how surgeries could soon be recorded, and that legislation was pending on making this mandatory for all surgical rooms. The increased use of technology in these venues is not likely to end with barcoding surgical instruments and recording procedures.

This is especially true when it comes to sanitizing these venues. After all, more than 1 million hospital based bacterial infections are reported each year. Complications from these infections lead to nearly 100,000 deaths across the United States annually. As such, infection related deaths are one of the leading causes of death across the country. 

Because of the liability and increased health care costs, along with the shortfalls that humans have in sanitizing hospital surfaces, more medical providers are looking towards robots to complete sanitation duties.

While we haven’t posted on the dangers of disease and infections in hospitals in a while, it does not mean that other disease-borne threats are not growing. The latest edition of the ECRI Institute highlights that outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) have been on the rise. The outbreak of infections has been associated with the increased use of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography procedures (ERCP).

For the uninitiated, ERCP’s are used to treat a number of gastrointestinal problems, including gall bladder problems, kidney stones and bowel obstructions. With these procedures, the risk of infections can occur because the instruments used in them may not be completely sanitized. Investigations have found that staff may not be following protocols established by the manufacturer. 

The outbreak alert also noted several processes that could be used to limit the possibility of infected instruments being used in future procedures. They included, but were not limited to:

With more intricate surgical procedures becoming technology dependent, it is becoming important for medical malpractice law to catch up, so that it could deal with the potential health problems that can come from technological defects.

 In prior posts, we have noted that medical malpractice is not always based on a physician’s error or negligence. The case involving a da Vinci surgical machine is a prime example. In a separate medical malpractice case emanating from surgical complications, an injured patient attempted to include the device maker along with the hospital and the offending surgeon.

However, a district court judge believed that the device maker should not be included. After all, it was determined that a medical device maker could not be responsible for the actions of a poorly trained physician. Nevertheless, the decision has sparked a debate over whether devices should meet credentialing standards similar to what doctors must procure.

In a number of our posts on medical malpractice matters, we focus on how a physician fails to act as doctor with comparable experience and skills would in treating a patient. Indeed, we bemoan physicians who miss on basic diagnoses or conduct operations on the wrong side of the body. We also criticize medical assistants who do not communicate or miscount equipment before or after a surgical procedure. However, not all medical malpractice instances are based on human error.

Yes, some malpractice (or negligence) cases can be based on faulty equipment. According to a medicaldaily.com article, a large number of surgical errors can be traced back to equipment malfunctions. This is an important element to consider when human error is believed to be the main culprit in a malpractice matter. 

An element in the notion of reasonable care in surgical settings is to make sure that all equipment is ready, available and functioning properly. This is why a majority of hospitals follow strict protocols in preparing for procedures. However, if the equipment being used is not up to standard, the hospital could still be held liable if assistants do not perform reasonable checks are not performed.

When you think about the concept of medical malpractice, you may think about a doctor failing to perform to the standards established in his or her area of practice. You may also think about surgeons failing to remove surgical devices after a procedure or doctors misdiagnosing a patient who ends up having a terminal disease. Despite these maladies attributable to individuals, a hospital could be held liable for malpractice as well.

This post will give a general explanation as to why.

To put hospital malpractice into proper context, consider this: when an automaker produces a vehicle that has particular defects that go unaddressed, the automaker could be held liable because it has a responsibility to ensure that its product is free from defects that could harm an unsuspecting consumer. Likewise, a hospital has a duty to ensure that the services it provides is not hindered by problems or inefficiencies that could result in a patient being harmed. 

While a majority of our hospital negligence posts focus on the diseases and ailments that patients may contract, it is not uncommon for nurses and hospital staff to contract diseases when proper treating procedures have not been established, or when the proper equipment is not available to protect nurses and other workers.

This may have been the case when a handful of nurses contracted Ebola last fall. In what was a highly publicized event, two nurses from Texas Presbyterian Health System in Dallas were sickened after caring for a patient who exhibited symptoms and fell ill. The patient died, but the nurses (after being treated at a different hospital) eventually recovered. 

One of the nurses is expected to file suit against Texas Presbyterian accusing the hospital of being negligent for not having the proper equipment or providing the proper training so that nurses can effectively treat patients who have Ebola. She is seeking money damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of future earnings.

When you think about bacteria, chances are that you are trying to avoid the harmful effects that come from it. After all, bacteria is commonly followed by sickness and disease; and if you have something caused by harmful bacteria, chances are that you are being prescribed antibiotics to get rid of it.

Indeed, feeling better is something that we all want, but we may not want to eliminate all bacteria in our bodies. There are helpful bacteria that work with our immune system to keep us healthy. And when beneficial bacteria are eliminated, that can put us at risk. 

This is the concern that researchers have when considering the spread of Clostridium difficile (better known as C-diff). It is a germ that can grow in the colon after antibiotics kill of other bacteria. C-diff can cause diarrhea and even lead to death. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 450,000 Americans were sickened by C-diff in 2011. In fact, it is blamed for nearly 15,000 deaths each year.

We have noted in a number of our posts the responsibilities hospitals have to keep patients safe from harm. This includes following established protocols for preparing patients for surgery, monitoring their vitals for potential abnormalities, and listening to their concerns about medications and treatments.

One of these responsibilities is to ensure that patients do not succumb to infections due to unclean materials or equipment. Essentially, if a hospital fails to follow established guidelines for sanitizing equipment, and a patient is sickened as a result, the hospital could be held liable. 

This is especially important given the situation that has arisen at UCLA’s Ronald Reagan Medical Center. According to a recent ABC News.com report, a “superbug” which can be potentially deadly, has infected several patients. The superbug, known as CRE, has been found to be resistant to antibiotics and was likely transmitted through contaminated medical scopes used in endoscopic procedures at the hospital. CRE can cause infections of the bladder and lungs, which can manifest themselves in flu-like symptoms, including fever, chills and coughs. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cases of CRE have been reported in every state except for Maine, Alaska and Idaho.

If there is anything that is synonymous with a hospital setting, it is the surgical mask. It is almost as common for medical personnel as the standard scrubs are. The idea of a surgical mask is that it is to protect against the transmission of germs. But are surgical masks as effective as they are thought to be, especially considering the throes of flu season and the recent outbreaks of the measles?

A recent medicaldaily.com article explored that question.

Essentially, the effectiveness of a surgical mask depends on two major factors: the location of the sick individual and the method in which germs are transmitted. 

We have written a number of times about how physicians and medical staff have a duty to use reasonable care while tending to patients they are assigned to. Indeed, the main impetus behind medical malpractice cases is the failure to use such care (i.e. acting as a physician with similar experience would in a given situation), but often malpractice cases may start even before this.

According to a recent Consumer Reports study, the lack of respect a patient may receive from hospital staff may lead to medical errors. For instance, certain pains and complaints of discomfort may be dismissed as a patient simply whining; or a doctor may not carefully listen to a patient’s concerns when he or she speaks up.

Among their many findings, researchers learned that patients who believed that they rarely received respect were more than twice as likely to experience a “preventable medical error” compared to those who received respect. Further, a quarter of the patients surveyed indicated that they were not always treated as adults with regard to their own care and a third of those surveyed said that medical personnel did not listen to their wishes without interrupting.