DC Medical Malpractice & Patient Safety Blog

Infections in the large-bore tubes that keep patients in intensive care units alive are often lethal but readily preventable. A simple checklist of sanitary practices was proven to cut the rate of these "central line infections" to nearly zero. But that was in one chain of hospitals in Michigan. What about the rest of the country?

Peter Pronovost, the Johns Hopkins safety guru who ran the study in Michigan proving that these infections could be eliminated, was given big grant money by the U.S. government and private foundations to spread the learning to the other 49 states. So what has he found? Here's an excerpt from what he wrote recently in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

Hospital enrollment in the program has been surprisingly slow. In many states, less than 20% of hospitals have volunteered to participate. Some hospitals have reduced infection rates, most have not. Some hospitals claim they use the checklist, despite having high or unknown infection rates. Some hospitals are content to meet the national average, despite evidence that these rates may be reduced by half. Some hospital administrators say their patients are too sick; these infections are inevitable. Yet, intensive care units in several large academic hospitals have nearly eliminated CLABSIs [central line infections]. Some hospitals blame competing priorities for their inattention to these infections. If these lethal, expensive, measurable, and largely preventable infections are not a priority, what is?

Perhaps most concerning is the response from nurses in participating hospitals when asked: "if a new nurse in your hospital saw a senior physician placing a catheter but not complying with the checklist, would the nurse speak up and would the physician comply?" The answer is almost always, "there is no way the nurse would speak up." Doubly disturbing, physicians and nurses uniformly agree patients should receive the checklist items. What other industry would
accept a routine safety violation that is associated with the deaths of tens of thousands of patients and not be held accountable? The US health care culture still does not support the questioning of physician behavior.

That last sentence is perhaps the most chilling -- because it shows, once again, that many patients are going to be doomed to preventable injuries and death until the medical culture begins to change, and doctors get off their pedestal and join the rest of the team trying to keep patients safe.

Doctors repeatedly blame patients for the high rate of Cesarean sections in this country. As one claimed in today's New York Times letters column, parents demand "nothing short of a perfect outcome" from childbirth and sue when they don't get it.

The reality is quite different.

Here's what I wrote in a letter published in the same New York Times issue:

A fundamental patient safety issue is at the heart of our high C-section rate. The reason that hospitals must have staff “immediately available” for an emergency C-section is that when a mother’s uterus ruptures, the baby’s lifeline is cut off and brain damage begins in around 17 to 18 minutes, according to the best studies.

Rupture occurs in about 1 percent of vaginal birth after Caesarean (VBAC) attempts. That’s a high enough risk — with lifelong consequences to the child and his or her family — that only the reckless or the ill informed would tempt fate by trying delivery in a facility without an obstetrician immediately available to do an emergency C-section.

According to your article, hospitals complain of the risk of being sued for a bad outcome if they follow the old guideline of having the surgical team “readily available,” which allows calling in a team from outside the hospital, as opposed to “immediately available.”

We should not let semantics obscure safety. Instead of blaming lawsuits for the high C-section rate, the focus should be on hospitals that don’t want to invest the resources necessary to make VBAC safe for mothers and families.

Many patients (and a few doctors) continue to be amazed that the law requires that patients be able to obtain a copy of their own medical records. And reading them is good for your health, I and other patient safety advocates maintain.

Here's what I wrote on a New York Times blog about this:

Getting and reading your own medical records is Step One of the advice I give patients to become involved, intelligent, and actrive in their own care. There are at least three things the patient learns:

1. Am I communicating well with this doctor? Is the history of my problems recorded in the records recognizable to me and reasonably complete?

2. Is there some lab test result that I need to know about where the communications has fallen through the cracks somehow?

3. Are there any errors that need correcting?

These are vital questions that help patients get to the right doctor and make sure tragedies don’t occur. Top providers like Brigham & Women’s Hospital, the Cleveland Clinic and the Veterans system make it easy for patients to read their own records online. Eventually, we will all read our records routinely, and we’ll be healthier for it.

Read comments from other Times' readers here.

A lot of doctors fret about patients reading over their shoulders, but as a non-physician who reads medical records every day, I can say without doubt: It's a good thing.

A long article in the New York Times brings home the dangers of women undergoing disfiguring surgery or radiation for breast cancer they never had. The story is a familiar one to malpractice attorneys but not well enough known to the public: The critical job of determining if breast tissue is cancerous or not is sometimes left in the hands of inexperienced pathologists who are prone to error.

The problem is worse with diagnosis of "ductal carcinoma in situ" (DCIS), an early form of cancer that may or may not progress to truly invasive cancer. The criteria for DCIS are sometimes subtle and not all pathologists agree on them.

What can patients do to protect themselves?

As I write in my book, "The Life You Save," you should never have any kind of cancer surgery without at least one second opinion on the biopsy. You can have a top cancer pathologist review your tissue slides for a cost of at most a few hundred dollars, and it might even be covered by your insurance.

Second, make sure the pathologist who interprets your specimen has enough experience. The College of American Pathologists now says 250 cases a year are the minimum for competence in this field, and it is starting a special certification program for breast cancer pathology.

The Times' article features Monica Long, a nurse in northern Michigan who had disfiguring breast surgery for DCIS, only to learn later that she never had it. She also learned too late that the pathologist at her hospital had only seen 50 cases a year and was not yet certified in any kind of pathology when he gave the reading on her tissue.

Some women get so scared by the diagnosis of DCIS that they have BOTH breasts removed. As previously reported in this blog, having a healthy breast removed does not improve a woman's statistical odds of survival. And as many as two out of three cases of DCIS never progress to full-fledged cancer. But such is the power of the "C" word to frighten people into doing anything -- even undergoing mutilation unnecessarily -- to try to stay alive.

This makes it all the more imperative for the pathology community to develop better criteria for the diagnosis of DCIS, and to improve the certification program so that this scary diagnosis is not made unless it's truly warranted.

The Times' "Well" blog has compelling accounts written in by other patients. Click here to browse them.

Reading these stories compels me to make another point: Unless you are financially destitute, I think it's a bad idea to let insurance coverage drive important medical decisions. If the insurance company won't pay for getting a second reading on the biopsy, scrape up the dough and get it done yourself. You'll be glad you did.

Among other second opinion providers, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, DC, gives second readings at a modest cost.

A newly minted M.D. doctor wandering the halls of a hospital, working long hours with little sleep as he or she begins years of residency training, can be a potential disaster waiting to happen. That's the source of the old bromide about July being the most dangerous month to get sick, since that's when residency programs start their new year.

In theory, all junior doctors receive careful supervision from senior doctors in training and from full-fledged "attending" physicians. But in practice, in busy institutions junior doctors can work long hours with little supervision, and mistakes that cause injuries to patients can result.

In 2003, residency programs accredited by the official supervisory body, the ACGME, were required to cut resident work weeks from 120 to 80 hours. But in December 2008, the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies of Sciences, recommended more changes to improve patient safety in residency programs.

One of them was to end the practice of 24-hour shifts.

The ACGME is now following that advice, but only in part. As of July 2011, first-year residents will be limited to 16-hour shifts, but after the first year, residents will still be able to work a 24-hour shift. Many experts believe the longer shifts are dangerous for patient safety because of sleep deprivation.

The 16-hour limit for first-years is part of a series of recommendations being submitted to the ACGME board for final approval in a few months.

Sidney Wolfe, MD., head of Public Citizen Health Research Group, is critical of the failure of the ACGME to propose a 16-hour limit across the board. He says: "The improvements in the new ACGME guidelines are largely swamped by the failure to cover the majority of medical residents with the protection of not having to work more than 16 hours continuously."

In the new proposal, first-year residents would also be barred from moonlighting at other jobs and from being "on call" in hospitals.

See the article in American Medical News for more details.

A new survey in a medical journal says the overwhelming majority of doctors believe that defensive medicine is costing the nation billions of dollars a year and they need protection from malpractice lawsuits. But does it really add up?

There is no question that U.S. patients undergo many more tests and procedures than any other country, and that we don't show anything good for it in our health statistics compared to other countries with much more inexpensive care.

Doctors typically say their peers order unnecessary tests because the patient will sue them if they don't.

This has always struck me as a strange admission.

To get paid, doctors have to attest to the necessity of any test they order, so when they order these so-called defensive tests purely to protect themselves, they commit insurance fraud.

Of course, if there's any chance the test may help the patient by revealing a treatable problem, then the test was necessary and doesn't fall into the category of insurance fraud or defensive medicine. Yet many doctors seem to think it's only the extra threat of being sued for not ordering the test that pushes them over the line to ordering it.

The Wall Street Journal's Katherine Hobson wrote up the new survey on her health blog, which appeared in Archives of Internal Medicine, and drew some interesting comments from readers. One patient told his own story:

* Gerald wrote:

I have read comments here with interest. I have had a doctor tell me he was ordering a test on me more out of a fear of being sued, and that it “was probably not necessary.” I was shocked. I said, “Doc, you are telling me that if I have a brain tumor, and die, that is not a serious enough risk for me to have an MRI, UNLESS YOU COULD BE SUED FOR IT!” I had some severe headaches.

The doctor turned red with embarrassment, and perhaps shame. He apologized and said he did not realize what he was saying. He could only be sued if turned out to have a serious medical problem that could have been prevented by the test. He was admitting that my life was not enough motivation for the test, but if he could be sued for the lost of my life; then it was good motivation for the test.

The survey was not scientifically rigorous. As reported by the WSJ:

Researchers say that 91% of the 1,231 doctors who responded to their survey “reported believing that physicians order more tests and procedures than needed to protect themselves from malpractice suits.”

The "belief" by a survey respondent that some doctors order tests only to protect themselves is a far cry from admitting that one personally does this.

Another commenter, who identified himself on the WSJ blog as Rod Tucker Esq., wrote:

Every survey such as this one should require that the doctors give their names and specific examples of the tests they had done which they did not feel were necessary. Then their patients could ask why they were forced to undergo these often harmful and usually painful tests and why they were forced to pay for unnecessary acts by the doctor. The insurance company could also refuse to pay because the test was by definition unnecessary.

No person in business (doctors get paid for their work and are by definition in business) has the right to demand that they get to mess up and not be responsible to the innocent person they hurt. So instead of trying to give doctors a free pass how about we treat them like everyone else and ask the cost of a test and decide for ourselves if it is necessary, just like we do when we buy anything else.

As noted many times on this blog, nurses are the patient safety mainstays of good hospital care. So should hospitals be required to maintain a minimum nurse-to-patient ratio? California has done so, and nurse Theresa Brown wrote an op-ed recently in the New York Times discussing a proposed federal mandate (which seems to be going nowhere).

Now several nurses have interesting responses to the mandate issue in the Times' letters column, including this one:

As a staff registered nurse on a busy medical telemetry floor in a Midwestern hospital, I can certainly sympathize with Ms. Brown’s assertion that mandatory nurse-patient staffing ratios can improve patient care and save lives. But I disagree with legislative action to accomplish this end.

Patient acuity and staffing, as Ms. Brown well knows, are complex and individual issues that require thought and attention rather than bureaucracy. Nurses are not warm bodies with a nursing license. Nursing excellence and better patient outcomes can be achieved only with a well-educated, properly trained nursing staff dedicated to our profession.

Mandating staffing ratios will further destroy the idea that nurses can speak for themselves. Our voices are already a dim whisper in a discordant health care debate. The fragmentation of our care, increased patient complexity and the existing nursing shortage compound our difficulties in providing safe care, but one arbitrary staffing law will not fix this.

As an R.N., I’ve safely cared for seven surgical patients at night, and have had days when three acutely ill patients seemed too many. Our professional judgment as nurses is sophisticated enough to determine our staffing needs, and a well-run hospital will support quality care at every level, especially nurse-patient ratios. Let us not as nurses turn over yet another decision to someone else, especially legislators.

Jennifer Abraham
Normal, Ill.

Many other nurses favor mandatory minimums and look for other ways to assert nurses' autonomy.

One solution might be to require full disclosure of average nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals. That would let patients readily see which local hospitals try to cut dangerous corners with their staffing.

It's such a relief to get a family member home from the hospital that many of us don't realize how crucial the next few weeks are in making sure the patient stays home and gets healthy. Hospitals don't always help the situation by giving out confusing and cryptic discharge instructions.

For this especially vulnerable time, patients and their family caregivers need to be very clear -- before leaving the hospital -- on the following key areas:

1. Is professional therapy needed? Physical therapy, occupational therapy, wound care and other types of care can sometimes be managed at home, as long as you have a caregiver willing to come to the house. If not, the patient may need to go to a transitional place first: a nursing home or rehab facility.

2. When is the next doctor appointment and who with? Don't leave the hospital without a specific appointment with the patient's primary care doctor. The hospital should help set up this appointment. The sooner after discharge this visit happens, the better the patient's odds of avoiding a readmission to the hospital.

3. What medicines need to be taken, and when? Insist on a specific list that takes into account whatever the patient was taking before the hospital stay and also whatever they need now.

4. Who do we call with any problems? The hospital's discharge instructions need to list a contact name and number, and also should say the types of problems that are worth a call.

5. What else do we need to do? If a family member is expected to give care -- like changing a dressing or helping the patient to walk -- make sure those instructions are precise and in writing.

The bottom line on all the above is that family members, especially when it involves an elderly patient, need to be very very clear on everything they need to know and do.

Here is a downloadable model form of a written discharge instruction sheet. This is from the Society of Hospital Medicine, a group of doctors who specialize in hospital care. Patients and families can use this template to make sure there are no gaps in what they need to know for a successful transition home.

The number is 1-800-MEDICARE (800-633-4227). It only applies if the patient is on Medicare, but it also works for protests of discharge from nursing homes too. The operator will send you on to your local Medicare QIO -- Quality Improvement Organization, a little-known patient safety organization that has power to investigate and reverse dangerous decisions by hospitals and other caregivers that want to send home a patient too soon.

Thanks to Karen Jones of the Oregon QIO for posting this phone number in a NY Times blog on patient discharge planning. She adds:

For more information about the QIO program activities, including a 14-state care transitions project aimed at reducing hospital readmissions, visit http://www.cms.gov/QualityImprovementOrgs/.

More about QIO's is in my book, "The Life You Save." The QIO is also useful if something bad has already happened to a loved one in a hospital or nursing home. You can request an investigation by the QIO, and thanks to a legal precedent won by Public Citizen, the QIO is required to tell you the results of their investigation. (In the old days, the QIO would invoke the veil of "confidentiality" to keep patients in the dark about what had really happened to them.)

The greatest fear for any patient in the hospital, and the biggest nightmare for their families, is that something will go wrong suddenly and no one will respond until it's too late. Beeping monitors are no help if their alarms go unheeded. Patient safety experts know that one basic way to keep patients safe and prevent death or injury from malpractice is to have enough nurses on hand.

How many is enough? Nursing leaders got the state of California, after a 10-year fight with the hospital industry, to mandate minimum nurse-to-patient ratios: one nurse for every five post-surgery patients, one nurse for every two intensive care patients, one nurse for every four children in the pediatrics ward.

If you have a family member in the hospital, these numbers are worth keeping in mind. Ask the bedside nurse how many patients he or she is in charge of. And don't let hospital management confuse the issue by pointing out how many aides they have. Aides can plump pillows and give other comfort measures. But only a nurse can recognize when a patient is in peril and give lifesaving treatment.

A new study by a nursing professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Linda Aiken, asserts that mandatory minimum nurse-to-patient ratios like California's could prevent as many as 14 percent of post-surgery deaths in New Jersey hospitals and 11 percent in Pennsylvania.

Another important outcome of ensuring that nurses aren't overwhelmed by too many patients is that nurse burnout and job turnover go down, and overall quality of care improves, according to the study.

Theresa Brown, an oncology nurse in Pittsburgh, has an op-ed piece in the New York TImes asking why bills in Congress to mandate minimums nationally haven't gone anywhere.

Saving money, of course, is the issue. But that's a penny-wise answer. Saving lives can be a lot cheaper in the long run.

If you had chicken pox as a kid, you have a one-in-three chance of developing shingles in your old age, and that can spell months or even years of searing pain. There's an effective vaccine to protect against shingles, but it's seldom used, and therein lies a story of the inadvertent clash between patient safety and insurance reimbursement practices.

Shingles is a re-eruption of the old chicken pox virus (known as herpes zoster) that sits dormant in the body of anyone who had childhood chicken pox. Shingles hits about one million Americans each year, and it's very hard to treat. It can go anywhere in the body, and victims often say the pain is worse than bearing a child -- and it lingers much longer too.

A new vaccine, approved by the FDA in 2006, can cut the risk of shingles by more than half, with just a single shot in the arm. The vaccine is now recommended by the Centers for Disease Control for anyone over age 60.

But only around one in twenty people are getting the shingles vaccine, according to a survey of primary care doctors by researchers at the University of Colorado, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and discussed by Dr. Pauline Chen in a column in the New York Times.

The culprit is money. The vaccine costs $160 to $195 per dose, and both private insurers and Medicare require patients to pay up front and get reimbursed later. Many doctors' offices, which lose money when even one in ten patients doesn't pay their vaccination fee, have stopped stocking the vaccine, and it's not much easier to get by taking a prescription to a pharmacy, according to the article.

Dr. Laura Hurley, the lead author of the new study, told the Times:

“Shingles vaccination has become a disparity issue. It’s great that this vaccine was developed and could potentially prevent a very severe disease. But we have to have a reimbursement process that coincides with these interventions. Just making these vaccines doesn’t mean that they will have a public health impact.”

Elderly people are particularly vulnerable to shingles because they often have a less robust immune system to fight off the virus. And if you've known anyone who has had an episode of it, the cost of the vaccine seems cheap compared to the suffering that could be avoided.

Here's an informative web page from the CDC with answers to common questions about the shingles vaccine.

Sometimes patients sign up for surgery with an experienced surgeon who then allows a doctor in training, with far less experience, to do the actual surgery. If this hasn't been disclosed up front by the surgeon and agreed to by the patient, the switcheroo is called "ghost surgery," and it's not acceptable. But exactly that has now occurred at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, according to allegations in a new malpractice lawsuit reported by Diane Suchetka in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Retired Air Force Colonel David Antoon says in his legal complaint filed in court that he, his wife, and the surgeon, Dr. Jihad Kaouk, signed a consent form in advance agreeing that only Dr. Kaouk would do the surgery to remove Mr. Antoon's prostate gland. He alleges in the suit that he has been left incontinent of urine and sexually impotent as a result of Dr. Kaouk allowing junior doctors to do the surgery.

The patient also contends that the hospital ombudsman who investigated his informal complaints told him there was no such consent form in his records at the hospital.

Surgical volume is critically important to a good outcome for prostate surgery, as previously reported on this patient safety blog. The author of one study in the Journal of the American Medical Association said he didn't feel comfortable about his own competence with the "robot" device now widely used for prostate removal until he had had several hundred cases under his belt. So it's understandable why Mr. Antoon would feel outraged that his wishes weren't followed.

I discussed "ghost surgery" in my book, "The Life You Save." Here is my advice for how you can avoid having this happen to you:

First, have a good discussion with the surgeon about who is going to do the critical parts of your surgery. If you don't feel comfortable turning over those aspects of the surgery to a doctor in training, then say so.

Second, follow up by putting it in writing. One simple way to do so is on the consent form. It usually says something like "I authorize Dr. Jones and/or his designee to perform _____ [type of surgery filled in here] on me." All you have to do is cross out the phrase "and/or his designee" and initial your cross-out.

Third, if you're in a teaching hospital, you might want to consider some compromise that lets trainee doctors do the non-critical parts of the procedure. But you have every right to insist that only the experienced doctor do the delicate, critical work. If the surgeon resists your wishes, you may have to go to another surgeon.