DC Medical Malpractice & Patient Safety Blog

For years, patient safety experts have known that medical devices, like tubes that deliver food and drugs to hospitalized patients, need to be designed so that predictable mix-ups don't hurt patients. If a tube is safe if it goes through the nose to deliver food to the stomach, it should not be possible to hook up the same tube to a line that delivers medication to a blood vessel, since that could kill the patient.

But this basic safety philosophy -- which permeates other high-risk industries like aviation and nuclear power -- still hasn't penetrated the medical industry, as a new report in the New York Times documents in distressing detail.

Partly to blame is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which could set up uniform rules that would bar as unsafe any medical devices where fatal mix-ups could be easily made by hurried nurses or other caregivers.

The way the agency does its work is the problem. When the FDA has tried to act on a case-by-case basis with an application from a manufacturer for a new product, efforts by FDA safety reviewers to solve the problem have been met with cries from the new manufacturer that it is being unfairly singled out.

Efforts to have industry-wide regulations have met with years of bureaucratic delay and industry resistance.

Here's a quotable quote from former FDA official Dr. Robert Smith:

“F.D.A. could fix this tubing problem tomorrow, but because the agency is so worried about making industry happy, people continue to die.”

When is a radiation overdose not an overdose? When the facility giving the CT scans says so. At least that's what the Food and Drug Administration concluded when it dropped a safety investigation of the Huntsville, Alabama Hospital.

Now the FDA, which monitors radiation safety for the medical industry, is considering re-starting its investigation, once a New York Times reporting team found that the doses of radiation given to patients at the Huntsville Hospital were 13 times the normal dose for this type of scan, called a CT brain perfusion scan. The scan is used to test patients for stroke.

Even a properly done CT brain perfusion scan delivers about 200 times more radiation to a patient's head than a skull X-ray.

According to the Times, the hospital claims it used higher doses to get sharper images.

A quotable quote from the article, the latest in a series about medical radiation overdoses:

“It is absolutely shocking and mind-boggling that this facility would say the doses are acceptable,” said Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiology professor who has testified before Congress about the need for more controls over CT scans.

Nearly every week, I hear about a patient who had surgery to relieve terrible chronic back pain and ended up far worse off than before. One of the biggest problems is that money motivates surgeons to talk patients into much bigger and more complex operations than they really need -- and then those surgeries result in predictable complications.

The greed allegation sounds a bit harsh, but it comes straight from the top: The Journal of the American Medical Association, in an editorial by a leading Stanford orthopedic surgeon, Eugene Carragee, and in a study carried out by a group of doctors at Oregon Health and Science University led by Dr. Richard Deyo.

The Oregon study found that the rate of complex surgeries for back pain in Medicare patients jumped by 15-fold over a recent five-year period, but there was nothing in the patient population -- like increasingly complicated back deformities -- to justify the increase.

Joanne Silberner of NPR reported:

Deyo says there's no reason to think people suddenly started developing the spinal deformities that justify the complex surgeries. He offers several possibilities for the upswing. "Many surgeons genuinely believe that the more invasive procedures offer some benefits," he says. "But certainly there are important financial incentives at play as well." Surgical fees for simple decompressions are about $600 to $1,000. The complex surgeries earn surgeons as much as 10 times more. He says another possible factor is the tendency for both doctors and patients to go for a new, more expensive approach just because it sounds better.

The problem is that the more complex surgeries carry at least double the risk of a bad outcome, according to the Deyo study.

Most back pain that isn't relieved effectively with medicines or other non-surgical therapies is caused by disk herniation or spinal stenosis. Spinal stenosis is growth of bone near a nerve coming out of the spinal cord which presses on the nerve root and causes pain to radiate down a leg. The vast majority of patients who need back surgery because of spinal stenosis can be benefited from a fairly simple lumbar decompression. This involves removing bone, ligament and facet joint material which is compressing the nerve root. This operation has a high degree of success as it's been developed over the last 20 years.

According to Dr. Carragee's editorial, if the patient also has some deformity of the spine -- front to back or side to side -- the simple lumbar decompression can result in spine instability with increased deformity, so those patients might need a fusion where adjacent vertebrae are fixed together with bone grafts. But even here, simpler techniques get just as good results than more complex procedures that add metal or other instrumentation into the back.

A very small minority of patients, says Dr. Carragee, have spines that are so collapsed and twisted that the spine is unbalanced and tilted forward and the patient has severe pain and poor quality of life. These are the patients who might qualify for the complex surgeries now being done so commonly. Techniques have improved in the last ten years, but the surgeries in these patients still carry a very high complication rate -- 30 to 40 percent. And a lot more patients are getting the complex, multi-level surgeries than is warranted by the medical evidence, according to Dr. Carragee and other researchers.

Consumer Reports has rated spinal surgery as No. 1 on a list of overused tests and treatments.

As quoted by NPR, Dr. Deyo said he would like his study to alter the practice of medicine. "The effect I would hope it would have is to have surgeons and patients choose the least invasive procedure that would accomplish the surgical aim," he says. But he's pessimistic about it, unless there's a change in the financial incentives.

This is yet another area of medicine where it pays for patients to be skeptical and to get multiple opinions. It fits our natural instincts to think that bigger and more elaborate surgeries have a higher likelihood of success, but the human body proves over and over that it prefers minimal interventions.

The Food and Drug Administration has canceled its policy of giving rubber-stamp approval to marketing of powerful new radiation therapy equipment like linear accelerators. From now on, the manufacturer of the machine is going to have to prove the equipment has proper safety checks to prevent dangerous overdoses of radiation to patients.

The New York Times ran a series in January 2010 that exposed some horrific tragedies that occurred, particularly when hospitals rushed into operation new and complicated equipment without thorough safety checks and training of technicians. The series also showed that the equipment often lacked simple fail-safe devices such as a way of preventing the machine from delivering a walloping overdose of radiation even if one had been inadvertently programmed by a technician.

But since the FDA only has power over manufacturers and not over hospitals themselves, it still will be possible for poorly trained technicians to cause errors that hurt patients by either delivering overdoses or underdoses of radiation.

In a follow-up article, the New York Times' Walt Bogdanich quotes Dr. Howard I. Amols, chief of clinical physics at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, as saying the more serious problems stem from shortcomings in staffing, personnel competency and hospital quality assurance programs:

“I’d also caution that however commendable tougher standards for premarket approval of software may be, its not clear that F.D.A. has the expertise to police this,” Dr. Amols said. “In fact, I’m not sure anybody does. That’s one of the big problems with software. It comes down to a qualified user recognizing that something is amiss.”

While the government regulators are getting their act together, my advice for patients is to always make sure you get radiation therapy at only a leading center that has been doing it for a long time. Make sure the center employs licensed, certified technicians to operate the therapy machines. Don't be dazzled by the new smell and clean look of a spanking-new therapy center. That could be a sign that people aren't well trained yet to keep you safe.

The scandal about injuries to cancer patients from malpractice in radiation therapy has had one beneficial side effect: the Food and Drug Administration is gaining urgency and attention for its new initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation in diagnostic imaging of patients.

Here is a link to the FDA's White Paper on its steps to make sure patients get only the dosage of radiation needed, at the right time and in the right way.

One part of the project is to make it easy for patients to keep track of how much radiation they've had, because accumulated dosing is what causes long-term injuries. The FDA says it is working

to develop and disseminate a patient medical imaging record card.26 FDA will make this card available on our website. While ultimately the best way of tracking a patient’s history of radiation exposure will be to incorporate it into that patient’s paper or electronic medical record, a personal record card will give patients and their caregivers a means, in the short term, of tracking their own medical imaging histories and sharing this information with their physicians. This will help facilitate critical discussions between patients and providers about the best available clinical options.

Time and again in U.S. health care, new technologies are hurried into wide use with little testing, scant training of their human operators, and lack of solid evidence that newer really is better. After the flush of optimism has faded, billions of dollars later, we learn how to judiciously use the new equipment, but only after patients have been hurt or killed by the rush to the new.

The latest example is the deployment of new radiation therapy machines on cancer patients with operators who are not properly trained or credentialed and equipment that has not been tested or calibrated. The New York Times' recent investigative series on the subject prompted one knowledgeable reader, Dr. Joseph Imperato, medical director of the Center for Advanced Radiation Medicine at Lake Forest (Ill.) Hospital. to write this:

To the Editor:

As a radiation oncologist practicing for 25 years, I believe that there is a crucial part of the story of radiation mishaps that has not been mentioned: the “nuclear arms race,” in which people want the newest technologies, without stopping to think about who is operating them.

In the past, academic medical centers were typically the first to obtain and use new technologies. The equipment would be thoroughly vetted and reported on in peer review articles before being accepted and used by the smaller community hospitals.

Now the reverse is true. Small community hospitals often far outpace academic medical centers. One example is the proliferation of proton centers run by for-profit companies. Often the staff has limited knowledge and experience with this extraordinarily complex equipment. And new technologies are often assumed by the public to be better, even though there is often little firm clinical data to support that.

As we struggle as a country to come to grips with health care costs, this is one area where there is great opportunity for savings. Clinical reviews can prevent the proliferation of needlessly expensive technology. What the public must come to grips with is that “new” is not automatically “better.”

See the Times' letters section for more.

In my book, "The Life You Save," I have several chapters that speak to this issue, particularly with new drugs. What patients need to understand is that whatever the technology, the early years of use are in essence a continuation of the testing phase. If you are comfortable with being a guinea pig, that's fine, but very often you can get better, safer care with the tried and true. And if the new technology looks enticing, go with an operator who has the most experience using it, because practice does make perfect.

What can cancer patients do to protect themselves from malpractice in radiation therapy? This urgent question arises from a lengthy series of investigative reports in the New York Times. The articles exposed serious patient injuries that stem from therapists who are overwhelmed and inexperienced, lax regulation and indifference by hospital administrators.

A key part of the problem is that technological sophistication has outrun the ability of the humans running the radiation machines to monitor the safety of the radiation beams they train on patients' bodies.

Another issue is that no central agency is responsible for inspecting the machines and credentialing the people who run them. Depending on the type of radiation involved, the Food and Drug Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and various state health agencies could have jurisdiction. Or worse, each could claim that someone else has the jurisdiction, and the patient can slip through the cracks.

There is one simple way that patients can take some measure of self-protection. That is to make sure that the radiation therapy center treating you has significant experience, in years not months, with the specific machine being used on you. Too often, hospital administrators buy a fancy new machine, advertise it heavily in glossy brochures, but don't take the time to make sure the machine is properly calibrated and that the medical physicists who operate the machine are fully trained.

You should also ask if the machine treating you has been inspected recently by an independent agency. One federally funded inspection and testing service is the Radiological Physics Center, operated out of MD Anderson Hospital in Houston. It does inspections for any radiation center that wants to receive federal funding for clinical trials. The Center found in 2008 that nearly three in ten hospitals it inspected failed to accurately irradiate a test dummy using IMRT technology.

The Times also found rampant problems with fake credentials among medical physicists, who are in charge of making sure patients get the right dose of radiation. The American Board of Radiology certifies medical physicists in one of three sub-specialties. You can check if a physicist is certified at the umbrella website for all medical board certifications, the American Board of Medical Specialties. Click here to go to the login page to search for a medical physicist's certification. The same page will let you search for whether a doctor is board-certified in any of the ABMS specialties or sub-specialties.

Also, the American Board of Medical Physics runs some certification programs. Its website has lists of diplomates but lacks any searchable database of qualified physicists. So the ABMS website is a better choice.

I recommend that patients ask questions to find out the qualifications of the persons running your radiation treatment program. If they lack certification, why take a chance?

I discuss the certification issue in detail in my book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst." Many of the most egregious cases of malpractice that I have prosecuted for victims' families have involved doctors who lacked basic board certifications. Click here for more information on the kinds of malpractice cases we work on.

Pennsylvania continues to lead the nation in showing how public health authorities can cast a little disinfecting sunshine onto the patient safety practices of hospitals.

In its latest report, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority says that in 2008, a total of 194 surgery patients were sewed up with a foreign object still inside them. They have a term for it: RFO, for Retained Foreign Object.

To avoid leaving behind a sponge, needle or other instrument, the nurses and doctors involved in any surgery are supposed to go through a counting ritual. The problem is that the count doesn't always end correctly. In fact, the same Authority reported that last year, there were over 2,000 instances of incorrect counts, which doesn't always mean an object has actually been left behind.

One technique to follow up when there has been a discrepancy in the count is to do an x-ray of the affected area. That should show up any hidden objects.

The RFO problem is expensive for patients and hospitals. According to the Consumer Union Safe Patient Project, the average cost of a hospital stay for the corrective surgery and other problems that come from a retained object is $62,631.

Whether or not a patient should get an expensive imaging scan or some other elaborate and expensive test is not always clearcut. But what should be clearcut is that doctors should not have a thumb on the scale when they're balancing harms versus benefits. The balancing ought to be focused entirely on what's in the patient's best interest. The news story about what happened when a group of urologists in Iowa ordered a new CT scanner for their office sheds light on this conflict of interest issue.

According to the article by Shankar Vedantam in the Washington Post, the doctors at Urological Associates in Iowa were ordering fewer than one dozen CT scans per month for their insured patients in the months before their office bought its own CT scanning machine. That number jumped to 55 scans per month soon after the doctors got their own machine and started getting direct insurance payments for its use.

Defenders of the doctor-owned machines say it's more convenient for patients not to have to go to some other building for their scan. That's no doubt true -- if the scan is really needed in the first place. The problem is that self-interest colors the doctor's calculation, whether subtly or blatantly.

You might say "so what," but no test is without its downside, and excessive radiation from unnecessary CT scans can ultimately cause cancer in some patients -- as many as one in one hundred cancers are traced to radiation exposure. Not to mention bankrupting our health care system in the meantime.

Congress is considering outlawing the practice of what is called "self-referral," referring the patient to a test on a machine that the doctor owns. At the least, Congress should make it mandatory that doctors disclose any self-interest they have in testing, so that patients can take it into account in deciding whether they want the test.

I discuss doctor conflicts of interest in Chapter 9 of my new book, "The Life You Save." Chapter 9 is called "The Second Opinion: Always Your First Choice." It explains why you the patient need to understand if your doctor may have some ulterior influence on his or her thinking, and how it's always a good idea to get a second opinion before undergoing any major procedure.

Another reason for careful patients to be skeptical about overly hyped prescription drugs came this week with news about the extent to which articles in important medical journals are "ghost-written" by drug manufacturers.

According to an article in the New York Times by Natasha Singer, newly released papers from lawsuits involving Wyeth's hormone replacement drugs Premarin and Prempro show that over several years, Wyeth repeatedly hired ghost writers who placed 26 articles in 18 prestigious medical journals, all promoting the drugs in the guise of objective analysis by medical experts:

The court documents provide a detailed paper trail showing how Wyeth contracted with a medical communications company to outline articles, draft them and then solicit top physicians to sign their names, even though many of the doctors contributed little or no writing. The documents suggest the practice went well beyond the case of Wyeth and hormone therapy, involving numerous drugs from other pharmaceutical companies.

The Times article made an interesting comparison to professional baseball's steroids scandal.

“It’s almost like steroids and baseball,” said Dr. Joseph S. Ross, an assistant professor of geriatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, who has conducted research on ghostwriting. “You don’t know who was using and who wasn’t; you don’t know which articles are tainted and which aren’t.”

Because physicians rely on medical literature, the concern about ghostwriting is that doctors might change their prescribing habits after reading certain articles, unaware they were commissioned by a drug company.

“The filter is missing when the reader does not know that the germ of an article came from the manufacturer,” said James Szaller, a lawyer in Cleveland who has spent four years going through the ghostwriting documents on behalf of hormone therapy plaintiffs.

The same concern about ghostwriting applies to patients who read literature on the Internet. People can be easily misled if they think an article is truly objective.

My advice, as I write in my book, "The Life You Save," is to rely on truly independent groups like the Medical Letter and Public Citizen's Health Research Group for objective information about drugs.

Some top medical journals like the Journal of the AMA now require authors to fill out detailed forms describing exactly how much input they had into the writing of an article. But many do not have such requirements. Consumer, beware.