DC Medical Malpractice & Patient Safety Blog

Hospitals that want to reduce their exposure to malpractice lawsuits from patients might want to take a hard look at a new study about a radically new strategy: Being honest with patients when errors have happened.

The usual hospital strategy in the face of a malpractice event is to deny everything and hope the patient and the family go away quietly, then when a lawsuit is filed, defend it to the hilt. But they do things differently at the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS), and it's a win-win for both patients and the hospital.

Since 2001, the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) has fully disclosed and offered compensation to patients for medical errors. Under this model, UMHS has claimed to proactively look for medical errors, fully disclose found errors to patients and offer compensation when at fault.

The study -- newly published in the Annals of Internal Medicine -- compared liability claims before and after the “disclosure-with-offer” program was implemented between 1995 and 1997 and assessed the number of new claims for compensation, number of claims compensated, time- to-claim resolution and claims-related costs.

After full implementation of a disclosure-with-offer program, the study found that the average monthly rate of new claims decreased from 7.03 to 4.52 per 100,000 patient encounters. Likewise, the average monthly rate of lawsuits decreased from 2.13 to 0.75 per 100,000 patient encounters.

Median time from claim reporting to resolution decreased from 1.36 to 0.95 years, wrote the authors, who also reported that the average monthly cost rates decreased for total liability (rate ratio, 0.41), patient compensation (rate ratio, 0.41) and non-compensation-related legal costs (rate ratio, 0.39).

However, the researchers acknowledged that the study “design cannot establish causality” and noted that malpractice claims generally declined in Michigan during the latter part of the study period. As a result, “the findings might not apply to other health systems, given that UMHS has a closed staff model covered by a captive insurance company and often assumes legal responsibility,” the researchers said.

Source: Annals of Internal Medicine
You can view the full text of the study here.

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.

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.

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.

A tragic death in Albany, New York proves the power of the civil justice system to spur safety improvements to prevent injury to other patients.

In settling out of court a lawsuit for the death of 32-year-old Diane McCabe, who bled to death after a Cesarean section delivery, the Albany Medical Center agreed to fund for the next 20 years a Diane McCabe Memorial Quality Lecture series focusing on enhancing patient safety. The settlement also requires the hospital to buy a maternal and neonatal simulator to be used in staff training on the labor and delivery unit and to change procedures on the use of a machine that monitors a patient's vital signs during childbirth.

The attorney for Ms. McCabe's family, John Powers, said:

"It was never about the money with the family. It came down to the non-monetary aspects involved with the settlement. They wanted to do something to make certain this doesn't happen to someone else and to create a memorial to Diane for the children as they grow up that they'll know that their mother is being remembered in this way."

Read more in the Albany Times Union here.

Unfortunately the medical industry continues to push for "reforms" that would curb the right of patients and their families to seek legal redress for tragic incidents of malpractice. The industry actually argues that hospitals would work harder to improve patient safety if they were freed from the risk of lawsuits when they fail to live up to their promises. Joanne Doroshow, the author of the Pop Tort blog, has a one word response to this notion: "Pul-leze!" Read more from her column here.

A new website has tools for learning how to speak up effectively when you've had a bad health care experience. That can be anything from being on the wrong end of someone's rudeness to being the victim of a serious malpractice event. The website is called The Assertive Patient. Click here for the link. It comes out of Massachusetts but has good resources for patients everywhere.

The website has a good diagram here that shows the steps involved in getting resolution to a bad experience, especially if it's in a hospital. You start with talking with the providers involved and if they are non-responsive, the hospital will have some sort of patient advocate or ombudsman or quality assurance officer or "risk manager" (many different terms cover the same thing). If this doesn't work, formal complaints to regulatory bodies are the next step, or talking to a lawyer.

The final chapter in my book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, also gives a step-by-step approach to getting to the bottom of poor quality care. And you can get the same information at my law firm's website, by filling out the form to download our free Injury Fact Kit.

The U.S. Senate Finance Committee is investigating deaths of patients at long-term care hospitals, in follow-up to a report in the New York Times last month. That report showed that the profit-making chains who run these hospitals, which cater to chronically ill patients, sometimes skimp on staffing and training, and disasters have resulted.

More on the original report in the Times can be found in our blog entry on the subject here.

These long-term care hospitals occupy a niche between large general hospitals and nursing homes. They do not treat specific kinds of patients but are defined only by the fact that patients tend to stay longer than at a regular acute-care hospital, but less time than at a nursing home. They are typically small, with around 60 beds. Many times they lease space from a regular hospital and will occupy a floor or wing in a larger facility.

The New York Times reports that it has received new information about disturbing events at hospitals run by the Select Medical chain. One example from the Times:

According to a doctor’s deposition in a lawsuit, nurses at a Select hospital in Tulsa, Okla., injected a relatively healthy 79-year-old woman with 10 times the amount of insulin she was supposed to receive back in January 2009. They then failed to notify her doctor for at least 90 minutes after they discovered that she had fallen into a coma. The woman, Ruth Tanner, died a month later without fully regaining consciousness, according to medical records and the lawsuit.

Select Medical generally does not comment on pending lawsuits, so out of respect for the legal process and the parties involved, it will not do so in the Tanner case, the company spokeswoman, Ms. Curnane, said.

Dan Graves, an attorney for Ms. Tanner’s family, said that family members agonized after the overdose. “Now their grief and loss has been multiplied by the knowledge that other families have suffered similar tragedies because of Select’s practices.”

It sure is. Work by Peter Pronovost and other pioneers in the patient safety movement has shown over and over that medicine's culture of "doctor knows best" can be dangerous to patient safety and can cause episodes of medical malpractice. That's because nurses (still mostly female) often see errors in the making and yet feel it is not their place to criticize or correct the (usually male) physician.

Pronovost, a Johns Hopkins critical care doctor, has a new book: Safe Patients, Smart Hospitals: How One Doctor's Checklist Can Help Us Change Health Care from the Inside Out.

Changing the culture of medicine, to encourage nurses to speak up as valued members of the medical team, is critical to improving patient safety, Dr. Pronovost says.

I interviewed Peter Pronovost last year for my book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst. One of the things I wrote about then was how the simple culture change of having all members of the surgical team introduce themselves by name at the beginning of the operation has been found to have a big impact on improving safety. Why? Because when people know each other by name, and not just by "nurse," or "doctor," they communicate better with each other, and good communications are vital in preventing hospital errors.

Patient Safety And Sexism In Medicine

I've been thinking about sexism in medicine since the news last month about the west Texas nurse who was brought up on criminal charges for having the gumption to report a doctor she thought was endangering patients to the state licensing board. The nurse was ultimately acquitted, as reported on this blog, but of course the outrage was that she was investigated and indicted in the first place (and fired from her job at the hospital where she had watched this doctor).

It's no surprise that the nurse was female, the doctor was male, and the nurse's accusers in the sheriff's office and the local prosecutor were male too.

Of course, it's not just the gender of the people involved, but their power. Doctors admit patients to hospitals and thus are "cash cows" who are often coddled by hospital administrators for fear the doctor will take his business elsewhere.

After the Texas "not guilty" verdict, there were some interesting comments from nurses about their experiences. One posted on the San Antonio Express newspaper web site was revealing:

I am from the east coast. There, the relationship between doctors and nurses is collegial. We respect one another as licensed professionals. I was amazed that the difference here in Tx. One simple example - if a patient being admitted for chest pain, and their blood test that shows they probably had a heart attack is positive, then standard of care is that they should be admitted to a unit that can do constant heart monitoring (telemetry). Where I am from, if the doctor gave written or telephone orders for a standard unit (without telemetry), it is the DUTY of the nurse to remind him/her that the patient has a positive Troponin and needs a telemetry bed. If you did not do that, and the patient had a poor outcome, the review committee would point the finger to the nurse that took the telephone orders for admission on not taking it up the chain of command until that patient had a telemetry bed. She or he would then face a peer review and be potentially turned into their state licensing agency to determine if their license should be suspended or revoked for failure to follow appropriate patient standards of care.

I heard a nurse very politely say "doctor, would you like a telemetry bed for this patient with a high troponin level"?

His response? "Can you put a nurse on the phone that knows how to take orders"?

The issue was dropped, right then and there, and the decision to let it drop was supported by the ER and hospital nursing supervisor, because they didn't want to upset the physician. Now I have met very nice physicians here, but for the most part, this is the attitude of many physicians towards the nurses. Nurses hold a license, and have a duty to ensure quality and safety of care, in addition to taking care of the patient.This includes reporting even the SUSPICION of unsafe care. It is a shame when our ability to do so is threatened by situations like this.

The handsome silver-haired doctor in the long white coat, standing at the nurse's station in a photograph accompanying a New York Times story, is the national medical director for a chain of for-profit long-term care hospitals. But he puts in barely ten hours a week for Select Medical Corporation, which has no physicians in its top management. Or nurses for that matter.

The founders of the publicly traded company, a father and son team, have made about $200 million since they started Select in late 1996, according to the Times. They also own stock worth many millions more.

From barely a handful in the entire country in the 1980s, the number of long-term care hospitals now exceeds 400, with growth fueled by Medicare payment rules that penalize hospitals when patients languish too long with a particular condition but reward those same hospitals if they can transfer the patient to a long-term care facility. Many of the long-term care hospitals -- and nearly all in the Select chain -- actually consist of a wing or floor within another hospital, so patients can be transferred just a floor or two and for reimbursement purposes be tagged as located in a wholly different facility.

According to the Times report, many of the long-term care hospitals have no doctors in the building overnight as routine practice. They have heart monitors watched by untrained clerks, or not watched at all. Patients have died from lack of appropriate attention.

Here are government inspection reports obtained by the Times from a Freedom of Information request. Statistics show that bed for bed, Select hospitals have four times as many official findings of poor quality than the average hospital.

Medicare rules pay long-term care hospitals more if the patient is hospitalized at least 25 days, but then reimbursement declines drastically for patients who need longer treatment. It's no surprise that the average length of stay at Select hovers at 25 days.

What is the appropriate role of profit making in American health care? Money can certainly drive improvements in technology and medications, but we have to question the role of profits in routine medical care.

This question can be answered -- perhaps unscientifically but with arresting examples nonetheless -- by just one week's worth of news. Joanne Doroshow of the Center for Justice and Democracy did a roundup of the evidence and posted her findings on the Huffington Post.

Ms. Doroshow found lots of reports of terrible injuries to patients and little accountability for the wayward practitioners except through the painful but necessary process of lawsuits in court. As she concluded:

Fixing our health care insurance system is no easy job. But this is the wrong time to consider weakening the legal liability and accountability of incompetent or reckless health care providers.

To avoid becoming a malpractice victim, and to get the highest quality care, a useful safety credential for patients to look for in researching hospitals is called NSQUIP.

NSQUIP stands for the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, developed by the American College of Surgeons. It was adapted from an error-reduction system started by the Veterans Administration system (a pioneer in patient safety and quality in several respects).

A recent report found across-the-board safety improvements in those hospitals participating in the NSQUIP since it was started in 2005.

The problem is that only about 250 hospitals in the United States participate. The College of Surgeons is now looking for ways to lower the $35,000 annual price tag for participation, which apparently has been a barrier to smaller hospitals to adopt the program.

Here is a list of the hospitals that currently participate in the NSQUIP.

The Wall Street Journal Health Blog reports on a new program growing out of NSQUIP which will help surgeons and patients calculate the exact risks of a proposed procedure and individualize it for their own hospital, based on data collected by the NSQUIP.

The NSQUIP program marks another step forward in giving patients the information they need to make intelligent choices about their health care. Unfortunately prospective patients don't have direct access to the NSQUIP data, but some of it is available indirectly through websites that gather hospital metrics, such as the Joint Commission "Quality Check" site and the Medicare Hospital Compare site.

I discuss the pros and cons of various hospital quality ratings in my book, "The Life You Save," where I conclude that one of the best measures now available is patient satisfaction, which is a survey that appears on the Medicare site.

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.

Measured by results -- preventable deaths and injuries due to malpractice, medical errors, preventable infections, misdiagnosis and other events that shouldn't happen -- American health care has a lot of problems. Millions of patients are injured every year, and upwards of 200,000 patients die annually from preventable errors and hospital-acquired infections. The United States also lags far behind other developed countries in basic health outcome measures like life expectancy and infant death rates.

But when U.S. hospitals measure themselves with a different yardstick -- the "process" measures of how often certain important things get done for commonly treated diseases -- the results are astoundingly good. An annual report from the Joint Commission, the agency that inspects and accredits hospitals, finds steady improvement in the "process" quality measures that it looks at -- with most hospitals now performing in the 99% range on things like how often heart attack patients get standard treatments in the ER like aspirin and beta-blocker drugs.

The Joint Commission now measures 31 quality indicators. They cover the most common hospitalizable conditions: heart attack, heart failure (when the pump isn't pumping effectively), pneumonia, surgical care, and children's asthma. You can go to this website to look up information about a particular hospital.

The problems with the report are:

* Data is reported voluntarily by the hospitals, with no independent audit from anyone other than the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission says it's independent from the hospital industry but is often seen by critics as a cheerleader.

* Outcome measures -- deaths and injuries -- are not included in the report. Even infection rates, which could have required reports if Congress ever passes health care reform, are not yet reported.

Consumers Union has a Safe Patients Project. CU says it's high time for the U.S. health care industry to be required to report its results. Patient advocates like me agree wholeheartedly.

More evidence of the urgent need for "checklists" to protect patient safety in complex medical treatments comes with a long article in the New York Times about terrible injuries from malpractice episodes during radiation therapy. Yet readers have to dive deep into the article to find this key point.

Scott Jerome-Parks suffered terrible radiation burns to his neck, and lingered for two years in agony before dying, because he received a seven-fold overdose in the radiation that was supposed to treat his tongue cancer, on three separate occasions. Why did it happen? The hospital, St. Vincent's in New York, blamed a confluence of tragic coincidences. But I reached a different conclusion, as I wrote in a blog post to the Times' "Well" blog:

Deep in this tragic article is the following paragraph that exposes the reforms that are needed before medical care can become safe for all patients:

"It was customary — though not mandatory — that the physicist would run a test before the first treatment to make sure that the computer had been programmed correctly. Yet that was not done until after the third overdose."

So there you have it. If the physicist had been required to run the test -- better yet, if the equipment had been set so that it wouldn't work until the final test had been run -- Scott Jerome-Parks would not have suffered the hideous injuries so eloquently described in the article.

Medicine needs to adopt standard and mandatory - not merely "customary" -- checklist routines to ensure the safety of patients. This is the thesis of Atul Gawande's new book, "The Checklist Manifesto," and I have a chapter on how patients can enforce checklist protocols before surgery in my own book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst."

Many medical commenters on the New York Times "Well" blog defensively say, "We're only human," to excuse these kinds of errors. Yes! That's exactly the point of the checklist. It recognizes that we're all only human and that when we are deploying potentially deadly treatments, a final check and double-check is needed, every time, before pressing the button.

The Times also found that the manufacturer of the software that ran the linear accelerator, which delivered the radiation, did not have in place until after the injury a simple "fail-safe" mechanism to prevent the kind of error that occurred.

The entire article by the brilliant reporter, Walt Bogdanich, is worth reading. Here is the Times' own summary of the article:

The Times found that while this new technology allows doctors to more accurately attack tumors and reduce certain mistakes, its complexity has created new avenues for error — through software flaws, faulty programming, poor safety procedures or inadequate staffing and training. When those errors occur, they can be crippling.

I also recommend that readers interested in patient safety issues go through some of the NYT "Well" blog posts on this article.

Actor James Woods' brother Michael died of a heart attack three years ago in an emergency room hallway in Rhode Island because no one was paying attention. Now, something good will come from Michael Woods' death, thanks to a settlement reached between the Woods family and Kent Hospital in the middle of a jury trial.

The settlement creates a new institute to help teach hospital staff how to pay better attention to patients and develop a more "human-centered" standard of care.

An impasse between the two sides in the trial was broken when the president of the hospital, Sandra Coletta, called James Woods the night before the actor was going to testify about his brother's death. As reported in the Providence Journal:

In that call, he said he heard something he’d never heard from Kent Hospital before, someone saying she was sorry for his family’s loss. ... Woods said the family’s peace of mind about the agreement was helped when Coletta met his mother, Martha.

“Sandra and my mother had a very personal moment, a mother-to-mother conversation,” Woods said, calling it a “sweet and dear way to express sorrow.”

“It was all I ever needed to see in my life,” Woods said, “one human being saying to another human being ‘I’m sorry for your loss.’ ”

In announcing the new Michael J. Woods Institute, which will be funded by $1.25 million of the hospital's money, hospital president Coletta said:

"We know we're not perfect at Kent Hospital. Mistakes were made. We can do better. The Michael J. Woods Institute will help establish a leadership role in promoting patient safety and developing new ways to improve the patient experience and clinical outcomes."

This is one often-overlooked benefit of the civil justice system: producing positive safety reforms to try to reduce the toll of medical error. An actor's celebrity helped make that a reality in Rhode Island. On a quieter level, similar positive events happen at the end of many lawsuits, where families who have lost a loved one insist that part of the settlement go toward education and system reforms to make hospitals safer places. Patient safety advocates like me believe this is one of our highest callings.

Did you know that rupture of an Achilles tendon can be fatal? This common injury has one potentially fatal but preventable complication: a blood clot can develop in the calf while the leg is immobilized for healing of the injury, and if the clot gets big enough, it can travel to the heart and cause what is called a pulmonary embolism.

The Achilles tendon is the ligament that connects the calf muscles to the heel bone. When it ruptures, the patient must have the calf immobilized for several weeks. That can cause blood clots in as many as three in ten patients, because calf muscles when they flex act as a pump to help bring blood back toward the heart. Immobilized calf muscles allow the blood to pool in the deep veins of the leg and potentially clot.

Samuel Burton, a retired Coast Guard captain, died of such a clot, and a distinguished federal judge recently decided the death should not have happened. Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that orthopedic surgeons at Walter Reed Army Medical Center had committed malpractice by failing to warn Capt. Burton when they were treating his Achilles tendon rupture about the risks of this blood clot and what he should do if he developed any of the symptoms of a clot.

When Capt. Burton died, his widow was shocked to learn from the medical examiner who performed the autopsy that two episodes of chest pain and shortness of breath, which Captain Burton had experienced in the weeks before his death, were signs of a potential pulmonary embolism. None of the doctors at Walter Reed had ever warned Captain Burton or his wife of this possible deadly complication and what to watch out for. She sued the government for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act. After a trial, Judge Lamberth issued a verdict in favor of the widow, and he ordered the government to pay her $2,080,000. Judge Lamberth concluded that if the doctors had properly educated the patient and his wife, they were responsible people who would have appreciated the need to get to a hospital for treatment before it was too late. Both Captain Burton and his wife had assumed that his two episodes of pain and windedness were from deconditioning because he had resumed some physical activities after being off his feet for weeks.

The judge rejected Walter Reed's defense that since statistics showed that only about one in one hundred Achilles rupture patients died of pulmonary embolism, they didn't need to be warned about the risk.

Captain Burton's family was represented in their medical malpractice case by Patrick Malone & Associates.

Read the judge's decision here.

The recent news about the two Northwest Airlines pilots whose licenses were revoked, less than a week after they let their plane wander 150 miles off course, raises the question: Where are the firing offenses in medicine?

The pilots injured no passengers, and the event didn't even qualify as a "near miss." But because they egregiously violated safety rules by working on their flight schedules on a laptop in the cockpit, the aviation authorities did not hesitate to pull their licenses.

In the medical industry, by contrast, it is well known that a doctor will lose his or her license for only flagrant patterns of drug or alcohol abuse or other criminal behavior, with a trail of dead and injured patients usually lasting years before the practitioner is finally put out of business.

Read my entire post on this in the Huffington Post here.

One of the HuffPost comments on my blog post raised the fair point about what should be firing offenses for attorneys. Here's what I said in response:

A firing offense for an attorney should be any conduct that is unethical or negligent and hurts a client. (That's a short and probably incomplete answer to a complicated question.)

In most states, the highest court of appeals of the state has power to revoke attorney licenses. Some do a better job than others. But unlike medicine, everything happens out in the open, for the public to observe.

For patient advocates like me, the frustrating part of the medical discipline system is its secrecy and unresponsiveness. I filed a formal licensing complaint about a Maryland plastic surgeon who put a healthy patient into a permanent coma with a gross overdose of local anesthetic; two years later, I received a one-paragraph response from the state board that he had received a "private reprimand." No details available, because, after all, it's "private."

In another recent case, I complained to the Florida nursing board about a nurse-midwife whose overuse of the uterine-stimulating drug oxytocin caused the uterus to rupture and the baby to suffer terrible cerebral palsy. More than a year later, I received a one-sentence reply that the board had "failed to find probable cause."

In the law world, comparable incidents would have received at least a detailed explanation of why the licensing body was or was not taking action. That's what we should demand of any professional disciplinary system that respects the public's right to know.

The current sorry state of medical discipline is one reason I warn readers of my book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst," that patients need to go way beyond looking up medical licensing discipline to make sure they are picking the right doctor for themselves.

Patrick Malone was interviewed on the People's Pharmacy radio show on how to avoid medical injuries and get the best care for you and your loved ones. You can listen to a podcast of the show by clicking here.

The hosts of this syndicated public radio show are an interesting couple. Joe Graedon is a pharmacist, and Terry Graedon is a medical anthropologist.

In their interview with Patrick Malone, Joe Graedon shares his own story about a medical tragedy that happened to his mother. The lesson: Any time you have a loved one in the hospital, you need to arrange for 24/7 presence there by a family member or close friend. It's very important to have an advocate with you at all times. Patrick Malone's book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, has an entire chapter on all the ways that an advocate can help prevent injury and get you home safely from a hospital stay.

Every hospital patient needs someone with them at all times to help prevent medical errors and keep them safe. That's a mantra I have advocated for years, and another example of why it's good advice comes with a riveting story in the Washington Post by health writer Sandra Boodman.

Ms. Boodman's article tells how a Washington area woman's advocacy in the emergency room and hospital helped lead to a correct diagnosis of baffling symptoms, and likely saved her sick daughter from harm. The article interviews Patricia Dawn about her 4-year-old daughter Brooke's illness, that was eventually discovered to be Kawasaki disease, an unusual heart condition.

Brooke got the right treatment in time, but only because of her mother's persistence. Mrs. Dawn refused the recommendation of the emergency room doctors to take her daughter home at 2 a.m. when she wasn't feeling any better but they had run out of things to do. At her insistence, her daughter was hospitalized, and an infectious disease specialist eventually figured out that the red lips, red eyes, fever longer than five days, and swollen lymph node in the neck all were signs of Kawasaki, which affects about 2,000 American children a year.

It was also at the family's suggestion that the infectious disease doctor was brought in who made the correct diagnosis.

The story underlines the importance of having a good advocate present at all times with a patient in the hospital. Even a lay advocate can see when symptoms aren't improving and can insist on action.

I discuss this subject in depth in Chapter 12 of my book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst."

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.

A new series of investigative articles by the Hearst newspapers concludes that errors in medical facilities are still taking some 100,000 lives per year -- a decade after a national report first focused wide attention on the problem. Worse, the reforms that started after that report have been piecemeal and ineffective, according to the authors.

The series concudes:

[T]he federal government and most states have made little or no progress in improving patient safety through accountability mechanisms or other measures. According to the Hearst investigation, special interests worked to ensure that the key recommendations in the report -- most notably a mandatory national reporting system for medical errors -- were never implemented.

Among the key findings of the Hearst investigation:

• 20 states have no medical error reporting at all, five states have voluntary reporting systems and five are developing reporting systems;
• Of the 20 states that require medical error reporting, hospitals report only a tiny percentage of their mistakes, standards vary wildly and enforcement is often nonexistent;
• In terms of public disclosure, 45 states currently do not release hospital-specific information;
• Only 17 states have systematic adverse-event reporting systems that are transparent enough to be useful to consumers;
• The national patient-safety center is underfunded and has fallen far short of expectations;
• Congress approved legislation for "Patient Safety Organizations" as a voluntary system for hospitals to report and learn from errors, but the new organizations are devoid of meaningful oversight and further exclude the public;
• Hearst journalists interviewed 20 of the 21 living authors of "To Err is Human" -- 16 believe that the U.S. hasn't come close to reducing medical errors by half, the primary stated goal of the report;
• New York's reporting system has run out of money and staff -- its last public report is four years old;
• The law mandating reporting in Texas expired in 2007, and funding ran out -- a new reporting law has been passed, but no funds have been allocated;
• Washington State requires reporting, but doesn't enforce that requirement -- and the legislature failed to provide funds to analyze the results.

If there is a silver lining in this cloud, it is that safety experts now know a lot more about how patients can keep themselves safe and secure in the health care system. I report their recommendations in my book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst."

A new report from Public Citizen proposes 10 cost-cutting, patient safety measures that would save an estimated 85,000 lives and $35 billion a year. The report, "Back to Basics," analyzed the results of scientific studies of treatment protocols for chronically recurring, avoidable medical errors.

In contrast to the high-tech tests and procedures that many experts blame for staggering increases in the nation’s health care costs, most of the reforms in Public Citizen’s report involve fundamentals as simple as practitioners consistently washing their hands, sufficiently tending to patients to prevent bed sores, and following simple safety checklists to prevent infections and complications stemming from operations.

Many of the proposals on Public Citizen's list are the same that I discuss in my book, "The Life You Save." The only difference is that I believe patients and families can do their own health care reform at home to implement many of these safety measures. I discuss examples of things patient advocates can do at the bedside to help prevent pressure ulcers (bed sores), injuries from falls, blood clots, infections and medication errors. See Chapter 12: "Your Personal Advocate, in the Hospital and Out," and Chapter 13: "The Scandal of Infections in Hospitals and Other Health-Care Facilities, and What You Can Do."

Here is more from Public Citizen's news release announcing their new report.

Aside from the tragedy of needless deaths and injuries, the financial toll of failing to follow accepted safety procedures is astounding. Severe pressure ulcers cost an average of $70,000 apiece to treat. A catheter infection costs $45,000. Each instance of ventilator-associated pneumonia costs $5,800. Collectively, avoidable surgical errors cost an estimated $20 billion a year, bed sores $11 billion and preventable adverse drug reactions $3.5 billion.

"There are many incentives to order expensive tests and procedures and too few rewards for providing basic, sensible care," said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. "As the largest investor in the nation’s health care system, the federal government should ensure that fulfilling basic patient safety standards is a condition of receiving federal reimbursements. And the government should pay providers for doing the right thing. It will save money in the long run."

Public Citizen proposes that health care providers:

• Use a checklist to reduce avoidable deaths and injuries resulting from surgical procedures (saves $20 billion a year);

• Use best practices to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (saves 32,000 lives and $900 million a year);

• Use best practices to prevent pressure ulcers (saves 14,071 lives and $5.5 billion a year);

• Implement safeguards and quality control measures to reduce medication errors (saves 4,620 lives and $2.3 billion a year);

• Use best practices to prevent patient falls in health care facilities (saves $1.5 billion a year);

• Use a checklist to prevent catheter infections (saves 15,680 lives and $1.3 billion a year);

• Modestly improve nurse staffing ratios (saves 5,000 lives and $242 million a year);

• Permit standing orders to increase flu and pneumococcal vaccinations in the elderly (saves 9,250 lives and $545 million a year);

• Use beta-blockers after heart attacks (saves 3,600 lives and $900,000 a year); and

• Increase use of advanced care planning (saves $3.2 billion a year).

One hundred thousand preventable deaths from medical errors in hospitals each year: That is the usual statistic cited by patient safety advocates. It comes from a 10-year-old report issued by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. The fact is, though, that the death and injury rate could be substantially higher. No one is sure, because no one is counting "adverse events" in a rigorous, systematic way, and evidence keeps piling up that hospitals under-report these events to health authorities and worse, cover them up.

An investigation by the New York Daily News of the city's municipal hospital system -- with eleven hospitals and 1.1 million patients treated last year, the nation's busiest city-run system -- found dozens of examples of failures to report egregious errors, and subsequent cover-ups including alteration of medical records to make it look like nothing had gone wrong.

The Daily News reported:

The coverups hid a trail of human suffering among patients who were maimed and relatives who were never told the truth about how their loved ones died or were injured unnecessarily.

The newspaper found a pattern of failures by state health authorities to act on evidence of fraudulent behavior in covering up the injuries. Moreover, it found that the state reporting agency itself was dysfuctional. According to the article:

The state is supposed to track and analyze all medical incidents and implement improvements. The problem is this oversight system — the New York Patient Occurrence Reporting and Tracking System (NYPORTS) — is a disaster.

Since 1999, all New York hospitals have been required to self-report a long list of medical incidents to NYPORTS, which in turn analyzes the incidents and implements patient safety reform.

Sunday NYPORTS barely functions. The Statewide Council that oversees it hasn't met in more than two years. Though NYPORTS is supposed to release "annual" reports, the last one filed is dated 2004.

To avoid needless injury, patients have to be vigilant about their own health care. That is why I wrote my book, "The Life You Save," which lays out a system of nine simple steps for patients to follow to get the best medical care and avoid the too-frequent disasters that happen in our fragmented care system.

Medicare has just published new information that helps patients determine if their local hospitals have a dangerous "revolving door" problem with some of their treatments.

The revolving door happens when a patient is sent home but then has to be readmitted to the hospital within one month. That means either that the patient was sent home too soon in the first place, or didn't get appropriate followup care outside the hospital to prevent the need to be rehospitalized.

Medicare's Hospital Compare website has added "readmission rate" reports for all U.S. hospitals for three types of illnesses: heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia.

USA Today has done its own analysis of the Medicare data and made it easier to search for hospitals near you.

I discuss finding a top hospital using the Medicare information and other tools in Chapter 14 of my new book on health care, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst."

Several letters to the editor in the New York Times have good thoughts on the critical topic of reducing hospital-acquired infections. It's important not just to exhort hospital administrators to try harder, but to set up incentives that reward safety and punish harm. One incentive not discussed in these letters is a national mandatory disclosure system. That would require hospitals to measure and publicly report all their infections. Consumers would then be able to make intelligent decisions about which hospitals to seek care at.

As previously discussed in this blog, Consumers Union has been advocating such a disclosure system for several years and has made headway in various states, but a national system is needed.

Chapter 13 in my new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, talks about, as the chapter title says: "The Scandal of Infections in Hospitals and Other Health-Care Facilities, and What You Can Do." Patients and family members can do a lot to enforce hygiene rules and avoid infection.

The news from Colorado that a drug-addicted surgery technician had exposed thousands of patients to the Hepatitis-C virus raises questions about the institutions' procedures for protecting patients.

According to news accounts, the surgery tech, Kristen Parker, swapped her dirty syringes, filled with saline, for clean ones filled with Fentanyl, in operating rooms at Rose Medical Center in Denver and Audubon Ambulatory Surgery Center in Colorado Springs. That way she could steal Fentanyl, a powerful morphine-based drug that is used for surgical anesthesia, and inject it into herself to feed her drug habit. Ms. Parker has just been charged in a federal criminal complaint.

The institutions are sending certified letters to 4,700 patients at Rose and 1,000 at Audubon advising them to get tested for Hepatitis-C. That's because Ms. Parker tested positive for Hepatitis-C, and several patients already have tested positive.

Hepatitis-C is a virus that causes chronic liver infection in about 75 to 85 of every 100 persons who get an acute infection. A few of those who get chronic infection go on to develop cirrhosis or liver cancer. There is no known cure for Hepatitis-C infection.

The Colorado Springs Gazette reports:

Parker worked at Rose from October 21, 2008 until April 2009. She resigned on April 20 from Rose, but the hospital refused to accept her resignation and instead fired her.
She went to work for Audubon shortly after being fired from Rose. She worked there from May 4 until Monday, said Dr. J. Michael Hall, Audubon's medical director.
Hall said certified letters are being sent to all patients who had outpatient surgery at the center's Circle Drive and Union Boulevard location May 4-July 1 advising them they may have been exposed and with instructions on what to do.

Surgical technicians are not licensed health care providers. Yet because their job involves preparing operating rooms for surgery, they have access to powerful drugs, so it's foreseeable the job can attract addicts. A similar incident occurred in Washington, D.C., a few years ago, where a tech at a major hospital was caught swapping out syringes filled with powerful pain reliever drugs for plain salt water so that he could inject himself with the narcotic drugs.

According to the Gazette:

Prior to being hired at Rose, she [Ms. Parker] submitted to a pre-employment blood test which tested positive for hepatitis C. She was allowed to start work but hospital officials counseled her about the disease and exposure possibilities.
Rose placed her on administrative leave following an incident in which a co-worker was pricked by a needle in Parker's pocket on March 23, 2009.
According to the affidavit, Parker quickly disposed of the needle and denied any use of narcotics. She was allowed to return to work after a drug screening test came back negative.
The hospital placed her on administrative leave again after a co-worker reported seeing Parker in an operating room to which she was not assigned. She was tested again for drugs and this time the results were positive for Fentanyl.

The questions yet to be answered include:

1. Why hire someone positive for a contagious disease like Hepatitis-C and give them access to needles which can spread the disease?
2. Why not fire her the first time she was found with a needle?
3. Why did the second institution hire her so quickly after she was fired by the first? Were references checked? Shouldn't she have been required to advise the surgery center who her most recent employer had been?
4. Should there be a central data bank so that health care employers can find out about fired or disciplined employees, so they cannot easily travel from job to job? There is such a data bank for licensed health care workers, but perhaps it should apply to unlicensed ones as well.

Stroke experts have widened the window for when the clot-busting drug tPA can be given intravenously. The previous U.S. guideline was to give the drug only if treatment could be started within three hours of the onset of symptoms. Many patients did not get the drug because they didn't get to the hospital in time or it took too long to do tests to make sure the drug could be helpful. (Everyone with stroke symptoms has to have a CT scan to make sure the stroke is not caused by bleeding in the brain, because if tPA is given on top of bleeding, it could worsen the hemorrhage or even kill the patient.)

The new guideline widens the effective time window to four and one-half hours after symptoms start. It comes from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and is based on European studies.

Stroke experts stress that just because there is more time now to administer this drug does not mean patients or doctors should think they can go slow. The faster treatment is begun, the more likely it is to help break up the clot and restore normal blood flow in the brain. Anyone with stroke symptoms needs to be rushed to a hospital with special expertise in stroke treatment.

In a study published this week in The Lancet, a British research team found that surgical stockings given to stroke patients for prevention of blood clots do not work, reports Sam Lister of UK’s Times.

The compression stockings provide graduated pressure and should reduce swelling in the legs. Studies have shown that, for patients immobilized after surgery, these stockings effectively reduce formation of blood clots, which can be deadly when the clots travel up to the heart or lungs and obstruct blood flow.

However, in the new Lancet paper, scientists followed 2,500 stroke patients in Britain, Italy and Australia, and found that the use of compression stockings made no significant difference in the occurrence of DVT (deep vein thrombosis, the blood clots in the deep veins of the legs that can travel to the heart or lungs). Patients who wore the stockings actually suffered additional symptoms that include skin breaks, ulcers and blisters.

The results of the study were also presented at the European Stroke Conference on May 27 in Stockholm. Researchers believe this study conclusively shows compression stockings should not be recommended to stroke patients.

Time was when you had to pay a lot extra to get a private room in a hospital, and the single room was thought to be a luxury for patients. But now research has been accumulating that the private room can play a big role in safety: cutting the risk of infection, helping the patient sleep better at night, reducing the risk of medication mixups, and to boot, making for the kind of real privacy that the Orwellian-termed "semi-private" room does not allow.

In most new hospital construction in the United States, the patient rooms are single-bed, and many of them have other features that promote safety and comfort: like having plenty of room for a family member to stay in the room (so they can act as a patient advocate), and placing a sink near the door to encourage caregivers to wash hands and reduce infections. The American Institute of Architects has called for single rooms in new hospital design since 2006.

These and other features of safety-oriented hospital design are discussed by Carol Ann Campbell in an article in the New York Times.

Another important feature of safe design is placing nurses stations within line of sight for the patient rooms.

Patients who have a choice of hospitals should look to these kinds of issues when deciding what hospital offers the best prospects of safe, high-quality care.

The importance of having an advocate with you at all times in the hospital, how to look for a quality hospital and how to take steps to reduce risk of infections in the hospital are discussed by Patrick Malone in his new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst.

Nobody wants to go home from the hospital only to be readmitted within a few weeks. But that revolving door is very common in conditions like heart failure, where the patient's heart muscle doesn't pump effectively after it has been weakened by heart attack or other heart disease.

The open secret of the hospital industry is that the financial incentives of Medicare and private insurers are tilted toward keeping that revolving door going. Hospitals that actually invest money in following patients after they leave the hospital to try to keep them healthy find that they lose money on this follow-up care. Reed Abelson of the New York Times wrote a report describing how progressive hospitals that have tried to keep their patients from readmission have lost millions of dollars in the process. Those include the Park Nicollet Health Services in Minnesota and Catholic Healthcare Partners in Cincinnati.

One lesson from this story is that patients don't have to wait for medical payment reform to get better care and avoid the revolving door. If you or someone in your family has heart failure, here are the early warning signs that symptoms may be worsening and a doctor or nurse should be called:

* Weight gain. Patients need to weigh themselves every day. Sudden weight gain often means a buildup of fluids caused by the heart not pumping effectively.

* Shortness of breath. Fluid buildup often is most apparent in the lungs and is signaled by being out of breath.

* Ankle swelling. Another place where fluid buildup can be spotted early.

A phone call to the nurse can result in an adjustment of medication that may ease the problem. If that doesn't work, a visit to the doctor's office might be in order. The goal is to intervene before a crisis develops and you have to be rushed to the hospital in an ambulance.

If your doctor already has a system in place that helps you monitor yourself at home, that means you have a top-quality doctor. If you have a hard time getting such a monitoring system going with your doctor, then it might be time to switch to someone who is more responsive.

Patrick Malone discusses how to find a top primary care doctor in his new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst

Strokes cause more disability than just about any other disease, but they don't have to. Effective treatments are known for the most common type of stroke; delivering them to the right patients has proven to be difficult. Now a group of researchers is proposing some changes in how stroke care is organized, with the hope of matching reality to the promise and greatly improving stroke outcomes.

In 1995, a landmark study was published showing that the impact of stroke on the human brain could be greatly diminished by using clot-busting drugs to dissolve the clots that kill brain cells in ischemic stroke. (Ischemic stroke is responsible for about four of five strokes. In ischemic stroke, brain tissue dies because blood clots or narrowed blood vessels block flow of oxygen-rich blood to brain tissue. In hemorrhagic stroke, which affects about one in five stroke patients, brain tissue dies because a burst blood vessel causes bleeding in the tissue.)

Today, though, it is estimated that fewer than one in ten victims of ischemic stroke are treated with either intravenous tPA, the main clot-dissolving drug, or other effective treatments, such as breaking up the clot with a mechanical device inserted inside the blood vessel.

The accepted convention is that tPA does not work unless the i.v. is started within three hours of the onset of stroke symptoms. Most patients don't get to the hospital that quickly, and even when they do, time is eaten up by the necessity to give everyone a CT scan to make sure they are not having a bleeding stroke, for which use of the clot-dissolving drugs could be a disaster.

A new article by Drs. Reza Hakimelahi and R. Gilberto González, "Neuroimaging of Ischemic Stroke With CT and MRI: Advancing Towards Physiology-Based Diagnosis and Therapy," advocates these changes to help deliver more of these proven treatments to more patients:

* Doctors need to recognize that the three-hour window for treatment sometimes is much longer in patients who have blockages of smaller vessels in the brain with some temporary compensation through "collateral" vessels. Better imaging studies can identify these patients who have an "ischemic penumbra" that would benefit from clot-dissolving drugs.

* Many patients can benefit, even after the three hours has expired, by direct intervention with mechanical devices to break up clots from the inside of the vessels. Because this requires expertise in interventional neuroradiology, a field with only a few hundred practitioners in the United States, the authors recommend cross-training for doctors in related fields who know how to use tiny tubes inside blood vessels to deliver treatments. These include interventional cardiologists.

* Hospitals that are recognized as expert in care of acute strokes could be divided between advanced and general levels of expertise. On the general level, any such hospital needs to have 24-hour CT scanning and the ability to give clot-busting drugs in the emergency department. To qualify as an advanced stroke center, the hospital would have to have the ability to do interventional treatments inside blood vessels ("endovascular therapy"), a neuro-intensive care unit, and a team of doctors from multiple specialties that work together to decide the best treatment for each patient.

(NOTE: To read this article, you have to sign up for a free membership at Medscape.com.)

As these ideas are debated in the medical industry, the best strategy for patients is to have some advance knowledge and basic planning. Knowing how common strokes are, and how urgent the timeline is ("Time Is Brain" in stroke treatment) once stroke symptoms start, here is what I advocate:

* Know the basic symptoms of stroke, and don't rationalize your way out of a trip to the hospital if the symptoms seem mild or go away after a few minutes. Here is a basic list from the American Stroke Association:
* Sudden numbness or weakness of the face, arm or leg, especially on one side of the body
* Sudden confusion, trouble speaking or understanding
* Sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes
* Sudden trouble walking, dizziness, loss of balance or coordination
* Sudden, severe headache with no known cause

* Know which hospital in your area has advanced stroke treatment staff and machines. Ask if they have a multi-disciplinary team. (It should include both neurosurgeons and endovascular therapists.) Ask if they have a neuro-intensive care unit (an ICU that treats only patients with brain or spinal cord problems).

* If a loved one suffers stroke symptoms, do not let the rescue squad take them to the nearest emergency room UNLESS the same hospital has advanced stroke treatment abilities.

* A multi-disciplinary team is important because conflicts of interest can drive doctors to advocate for therapy they can do when a safer, more effective treatment might be available from a doctor with different training. Having doctors work together to help the patient and family decide treatment is the best approach.

In his new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, Patrick Malone discusses one tragic case in which a patient needed a teamwork approach to her neurological problem but didn't get it because the hospital had no effective team in place. The book discusses the questions to ask to make sure your doctors are working together and not as competitors for your health care business.

Getting a loved one home from the hospital is always a relief for both patient and family, but the weeks immediately after hospital discharge are fraught with peril, as many families don't discover until the patient has to be readmitted for a new problem. This is especially common with Medicare patients: an alarming one in five Medicare patients are back in the hospital within thirty days, and one in three are readmitted within ninety days. Fully half of the non-surgical patients who have to be readmitted in the first month after going home had no followup visit with any doctor during that same month. That means the patients were basically set adrift to fend for themselves. These numbers come from an analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine, as reported in an editorial in the New York Times.

Leaders in the health care field freely admit that hospital readmissions come about from poor discharge planning and inadequate communication with family members about what they need to do to keep the patient healthy. The president of the American Hospital Association said in a letter to The Times about the editorial: "Most unplanned readmissions can be traced back to our fragmented delivery system, and to the lack of social support programs for many elderly and sick patients."

What is the answer?

Family members who are assigned by hospitals to take care of a loved one at home need to be very clear on what they are supposed to do. Do not let a family member be dumped on your lap without a clear, written list of everything they need, including medications, therapies, and appointments for return visits. Family members need a lifeline they can call on when things don't seem to be going right.

The leaders of our health care system are talking about extending Medicare benefits so that nurse managers can coordinate the transition from hospital to home, or teams of caregivers can conduct house calls on recently discharged patients. These are promising ideas, but what is needed right now is for anyone who has a family member coming home from the hospital to speak up and insist on clear instructions and advice. Being forceful and clear can help the caregivers help you to make sure there is a well thought out plan and that you can realistically carry it out.

Patrick Malone's new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, has a chapter on how family members can become effective patient advocates when they have someone in the hospital. The chapter includes a list of key checkoff points that you need to understand when a loved one is discharged to your care. You need to have at a minimum:

* A written set of discharge instructions.

* A specific appointment with the doctor in charge for a followup visit.

* A list of bad things to watch out for, and the contact person to relay this information to.

* Written lists of all medications that need to be taken, when and how; plus all therapies that need to be done with similar detailed instructions.

An international research team has shown that death and complication rates from surgery can be dramatically improved by using simple checklists to make sure that safety measures are taken before, during and after each operation.

The research project, involving nearly 8,000 patients at eight hospitals around the world, was done as part of the World Health Organization's program called Safe Surgery Saves Lives. The results were published in January 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

When the surgical teams at the hospitals used the checklists, they found that death rates were cut in half and non-fatal complications by one-third.

The nineteen items on the surgical safety checklist include basic items like verifying that the team has the correct patient and the correct surgical site, making sure the pulse oximeter (which measures oxygen in the blood) is working, making sure antibiotics have been given within one hour before the start of the surgery to prevent infection, and confirming that x-rays needed for the case are on display in the operating room. One other item on the checklist is to have all members of the surgical team introduce themselves by name and role; this is intended to give permission to lower-status team members to speak up at a later time if they notice something wrong. Click here for the entire checklist from the WHO (which is part of the United Nations).

The Patrick Malone law firm has prosecuted many lawsuits against hospitals where these basic preventive steps were not done and their absence led to tragedy. Examples include non-functioning pulse oximeters, surgery done on the wrong body part, and failing to prepare for known possible risks like heavy bleeding.

Patrick Malone discusses steps that patients can take to make sure their surgeons follow safe practices in his new book, The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst, available at Amazon.

Hospitals have long used color-coded bracelets as shorthand to communicate patients' needs to doctors and nurses. For instance, a purple bracelet might indicate that a terminally ill patient does not wish to be resuscitated in the event of heart failure.

Now there is a movement to standardize bracelets, preventing confusion when a health care worker moves from one hospital where (for instance) yellow bracelets mean "do not resuscitate" to another where they indicate an allergy to peanuts.

Bracelets have other pitfalls--for instance, a patient might not wish to advertise a certain desire or condition to visiting loved ones. And children have a tendency to take them off and trade them with each other.

The important thing, if you or a loved one is staying in a hospital, is to know what the colors of your bracelets mean and be prepared to tell doctors and nurses about it. If a doctor or nurse comes up to you or your loved one and begins doing something you don't understand, do not hesitate to ask about it--not only is it good for you to know these things in general, but they may be acting on a misinterpretation of the colored bracelet.

Forbes Magazine has an informative article on the frequency of hospitals making mistakes while caring for patients, pointing out that 1.5 million Americans fall victim to such errors every single year.

Some of these errors occur through sheer carelessness: for example, 100,000 people a year die from "superbugs," bacteria that are resistant to available antibiotics. Infections from these superbugs can frequently be prevented by hand-washing. Yet other errors are the system's fault and not the fault of any individual. They occur because of overcrowding and the consequent inability of doctors and nurses to spend sufficient time with each patient.

The article also cites an Auburn University study showing that hospitals administer the wrong drug one time out of five. The dosage of the drug is another common source of error. A famous recent example of a drug error is from last November when actor Dennis Quaid's newborn twins were given 1,000 times the intended dose of the blood-thinner heparin. Luckily the hospital detected the error before permanent damage was done.

What is the bottom line? There are no magical solutions, especially since most of these problems are systemic. As a doctor quoted in the article says: "If you're sick, the best way to avoid getting sicker is to take charge of your care." Asking questions and being unafraid to make demands is the most any individual patient, or their loved ones, can do to reduce risk of error.

USA Today has published the government's best estimates of death rates due to heart attack, heart failure and pneumonia for every American hospital for the past two years. The article has links to the pages where the death rates are published. As USA Today points out, this information was previously inaccessible to most patients.

From the article:

Now anyone with access to a computer can directly compare a local hospital with the one across town to see how it stacks up against the biggest medical institutions nationwide.

Death rates from heart attack, heart failure and pneumonia are widely viewed as yardsticks of a hospital's overall performance.

Using this resource is one good way that people can get the information they need to make sure their health is in the best hands.

Tara Parker-Pope recently had an article on how fewer and fewer patients trust their doctors.

About one in four patients feel that their physicians sometimes expose them to unnecessary risk, according to data from a Johns Hopkins study published this year in the journal Medicine. And two recent studies show that whether patients trust a doctor strongly influences whether they take their medication.

The distrust and animosity between doctors and patients has shown up in a variety of places. In bookstores, there is now a genre of “what your doctor won’t tell you” books promising previously withheld information on everything from weight loss to heart disease.

What are the reasons for this new distrust? Several factors appear to be involved:

(1) Patients often don't understand what is going on with their health care because doctors and nurses are too rushed to explain things to them. Dr. Sandeep Jauhar, cardiologist and author of Intern: A Doctor's Initiation, is quoted in the article with a story of a patient who was transferred from one hospital to another with no explanation for why. He blamed a "broken system" for such failures to communicate.

(2) There has been greater coverage in the news of medical error, the power of the drug industry and the flaws in health care administration.

(3) The Internet makes information much more available, so patients can be informed skeptics. Drug companies also market directly to patients, so they come into the doctor's office with their own desires and opinions on what medications they should take. The upside to this is that patients have the information to challenge a doctor's errors. The downside is that many end up taking a drug commercial, for instance, at face value and will not listen to a doctor's reservations about the efficacy of a drug.

Again, from the article:

“Doctors used to be the only source for information on medical problems and what to do, but now our knowledge is demystified,” said Dr. Robert Lamberts, an internal medicine physician and medical blogger in Augusta, Ga. “When patients come in with preconceived ideas about what we should do, they do get perturbed at us for not listening. I do my best to explain why I do what I do, but some people are not satisfied until we do what they want.”

The whole article is worth reading. In addition, the article's page also has an embedded video clip of interviews with people discussing their attitudes to their doctors.

Starting October 1, 2008, Medicare will no longer pay for eight hospital-acquired conditions that could be prevented if hospitals followed the proper guidelines.

Those eight conditions are bed sores, objects left inside the patient during surgery, falls that occur when the patient is in the hospital, blood incompatibility, air embolism, mediastinitis (infection of the area between the lungs, which can happen after a heart bypass surgery), catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and certain bloodstream infections. In addition, several other conditions have been proposed as additions to the list.

The purpose of this change is to provide an incentive for hospitals and health care providers to avoid errors and prevent neglect of patients. If both Medicare and the patient refuse to pay for treatment of a hospital-acquired condition, then the hospital is stuck with the costs, and most hospitals would obviously wish to avoid that.

This is a long-overdue incentive for hospitals to reduce the incidence of these events and injuries which should never happen.

Senior citizens who bring company to their doctor or hospital visits receive better medical care, according to a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Of the 38.6% of elderly patients who brought a companion along on their medical visits, the most common person to bring along was a spouse or an adult child, followed by other relatives and friends and neighbors.

The effects of bringing along a companion are clear and beneficial:

The parts that these companions played varied. Primarily, they aided communication in the visit, with 63.8% of companions filling this role. Of these, 44.1% reported recording physician comments and instructions, 41.5% communicating information related to the patient's medical conditions to a health professional, 41% asking questions, 29.7% explaining the instructions given by the physician, and 3.3% who translated the English language. Companions filled other roles as well, with 28.4% of all companions present for moral support and to provide company, 16.6% to help schedule appointments, and 8.4% to provide physical assistance.

Additionally, the elderly patients who regularly brought companions were more satisfied with their physicians' services, including technical skills, information dissemination, and interpersonal skills. If their companions actively assisted with communications, the patients rated their physicians' informational and interpersonal skills more highly. This trend became stronger in patients who reported themselves to be in worse health.

Not only is an elderly person more likely to feel better during the visit if he or she brings along a supportive person, but it will also lead to better communication with the doctor.

Larry Ragan, a man who spent a great deal of time around doctors before dying of Lou Gehrig's disease, made a list of suggestions for hospital workers, regarding how they can improve their treatment of patients.

Much of the advice centers around basic respect. Don't condescend to a patient by using their first name without permission, for instance. Don't put patients in skimpy and revealing robes: that puts the convenience of the nurse or doctor above the comfort of the patient.

The entire article is worth reading, including the comments from readers at the bottom.

A new study from the American College of Emergency Physicians shows that scarcity of beds and a decrease in the number of hospitals with mental health units has led to long emergency room waits for psychiatric patients.

As the article points out, almost eighty percent of hospitals have a four-hour wait for mentally ill patients. By contrast, for non-psychiatric ailments, only thirty percent of hospitals have a four-hour wait.

From the article:

Only half of the hospitals surveyed had psychiatric units. The rest transferred patients, sometimes far from homes and families. Hospitals are closing their units because of inadequate payments from government and insurers, unpaid costs for the uninsured and too few psychiatrists willing to work in hospitals, says James Bentley of the American Hospital Association.

Patients with mental illness "are the ones we hold the longest because there are so few psychiatric services available, and the ones that are available are overwhelmed," says David Mendelson, of the physicians group.

If you or someone you know has a psychiatric problem, you should be aware of this issue and be prepared for a lack of support in the event of an emergency.

Researchers at Dartmouth University have found striking regional differences in quality of health care. In addition, within any given region, black people are less likely to receive the appropriate health care than white people.

But region was the strongest factor that affected quality of health care. From the article:

For instance, the widest racial gaps in mammogram rates within a state were in California and Illinois, with a difference of 12 percentage points between the white rate and the black rate. But the country’s lowest rate for blacks — 48 percent in California — was 24 percentage points below the highest rate — 72 percent in Massachusetts. The statistics were for women ages 65 to 69 who received screening in 2004 or 2005.

In all but two states, black diabetics were less likely than whites to receive annual hemoglobin testing. But blacks in Colorado (66 percent) were far less likely to be screened than those in Massachusetts (88 percent).

What causes these differences? The researchers suggest that multiple factors are at work:

Such variations may be partly explained by regional differences in education and poverty levels, but researchers increasingly believe that variations in medical practice and spending also are factors.

The most extreme disparities, as the article notes, concern some important and even life-altering procedures. For instance, people in Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina are much more likely to have their legs amputated (usually as a result of diabetes or vascular disease) than those in Colorado or Nevada, and black people in those regions are much more likely to undergo amputation than whites. Also, access to mammograms sharply varies according to region.

The U.S. government is launching an ad campaign to promote a website where consumers can check to see how good their hospitals are, measured by such things as patient satisfaction and cooperation with recommended care guidelines. The website, called Hospital Compare, can be found here.

But the federal government is not the only such purveyor of such information: Zagat Survey (the same people who publish the restaurant guide) also rates doctors, for example.

These efforts are limited, however, by the lack of common standards. From the article:

While ratings efforts can be useful, they also can be confusing and limited in scope, says Robert Berenson, a senior fellow with the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank that studies policy issues.

"If I were a consumer looking at these reports, I would be bewildered by the variations that show up across different rating systems," says Berenson, who says there is not enough information available to shop for health care the way people shop for cars or televisions.

However, some organizations are making efforts to address this problem:

Last month, the Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project, a coalition of groups representing consumers, employers and unions, agreed to develop a national set of standards to measure doctor performance.

There is a growing industry of hired patient advocates. Patients are hiring people to defend their interests when they go to the hospital.

The impetus from this comes from the huge number of patients who die because of medical error, and the growing consensus that going into a hospital as a patient alone is one of the most dangerous things you could do.

From the article:

It is a trend emerging here and across the country, though it's not without controversy — and a hefty price tag. But it may be offering a vital, even lifesaving service in a severely overburdened medical system plagued by a shortage of nurses, doctors and hospital beds. Arizona — with the nation's longest ER wait time and an extreme shortage of doctors and nurses — should prove fertile for the fledgling business. "We have seen so many patients — including my own father and mother — nearly die in the hospital because of mistakes or neglect, we realized somebody had to do something," said Alice Milton, a Tucson attorney now working for Patient Care Advocates, a company launched two years ago in Tucson — first to provide home care services, expanding to hospital patient advocacy in recent months. "This idea was born of personal trauma, of seeing firsthand what kind of fight you have to wage to get decent care for someone you love. And of seeing patients who are absolutely terrified to go to the hospital, because they are certain they will die there," Milton said. "The need for this is huge — great enough to actually earn a living doing it."

Of course, savvy family members and other loved ones can also serve as your "advocate," with the added benefit that they will probably do it for free. But the idea is essentially the same: when you go to a hospital, it is comforting and may even be life-saving to have back-up with you.

Tara Parker-Pope in the New York Times reports on a study by British researchers investigating what questions patients felt comfortable asking their doctors.

Questions that did not imply anything about the doctor's preparation or experience or authority were easy to ask--for example, questions about length of stay, or details about how a procedure worked. However, other questions were tougher:

But questions aimed at improving patient safety and reducing medical errors were far more difficult for patients to ask, receiving an average score of just 2.4 points. Questions that received low marks included:

* “Who are you, and what is your job?”
* “I don’t think that is the medication I am on. Can you check please?”
* “Have you washed your hands?”
* “How many times have you done this operation?”

The abstract of the study, published in the journal Quality and Safety in Health Care, can be found here: How willing are patients to question healthcare staff on issues related to the quality and safety of their healthcare? An exploratory study

It is clear that, as hand-washing and double-checking medications are important safety protocols, patients need to become more assertive and doctors and nurses need to become less defensive and more open to these kinds of questions.

A new survey on patients' opinions on their hospital stays has some disturbing results:

Many patients reported that they had not been treated with courtesy and respect by doctors and nurses; that they had not received adequate pain medication after surgery; and that they did not understand the instructions they received when discharged from the hospital.

Nationwide, in the average hospital, 67 percent of patients said they would definitely recommend the institution where they had been treated to friends and relatives. Sixty-three percent gave their hospitals a score of 9 or 10 on a scale of 0 to 10.

At the average hospital, more than 25 percent of patients said nurses had not always communicated well with them.

There is more at stake here than the patients' feelings, as Dr. Carolyn Clancy notes:

“Poor communication is a major source of medical errors,” Dr. Clancy said. “If doctors are not listening carefully, patients may not bring up important information. Patients who do not understand discharge instructions are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital or end up in the emergency room.”

In a previous entry, we discussed the phenomenon of a form elder abuse in nursing homes wherein staff give anti-psychotics elderly patients without psychotic disorders in order to make them easier to deal with.

Earlier this month, a study was released following up on that, showing which states have the highest rate of this form of abuse. Louisiana and Connecticut head the list, with Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey below the average.

Two recent events highlight the need for easy access to information about a hospital's record of mistakes and violation of standards.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled on Thursday March 6th that patients have a right to see records on past mistakes made by hospitals and health care providers, including very old records, and that laws limiting access to such records are unconstitutional.

In more disturbing news, the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada violated hygiene protocols and, consequently, six cases of hepatitis C have been traced back to them. The linked editorial argues that detailed, publicly available information on medical centers and health care providers--standards, inspection results, past errors--is necessary for public trust in medical institutions.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a warning that the Nevada incident may not be an isolated incident. It is likely that these safety problems exist in other clinics all over the country.

When AIDS was first discovered and little was known about it, that ignorance resulted in a great deal of paranoia, ostracism and cruelty towards AIDS patients.

Now, more than two decades after we have known about AIDS and during which the disease has been studied and treated if not cured, we might be tempted to say that AIDS no longer carries its stigma. But we would be mistaken. A new study shows that AIDS patients continue to be insulted and demeaned by doctors, nurses and other health care professionals who ought to know better. From the article:

Examples include doctors who would not visit a patient's hospital room, neurologists who avoid looking patients in the eye, and ambulance personnel who madly threw bloodied gloves into the street after learning the injured patient carried the virus.

These instances of stigmatic events are described in the study conducted by Lance S Rintamaki of the University at Buffalo and colleagues. The study participants report several of these events, which include a wide variety of health-care personnel. "Clinicians should have the training and common sense to avoid a lot of these behaviors, but perhaps we shouldn't be surprised when hearing about nonclinical staff caught up in these events. They're likely relying on the same stereotypes and misinformation about HIV that are commonplace among the general public, which may lead them to act in fearful and stigmatizing ways toward HIV-positive patients," says Rintamaki.

This is discouraging news in the year 2008. AIDS patients and their loved ones should be prepared for these reactions and should take special care to insist on proper treatment.

Bedsores, a common hospital problem, are not just ugly nuisances. They can turn into deep and extremely painful wounds that go clear to the bone, and can be fatal when infected.

That is why it is encouraging to find that hospitals and nursing homes are beginning to take a highly effective collaborative approach towards preventing bedsores. From the article:

New research is suggesting that the battle against bedsores requires a team approach, enlisting everyone from nurses and nursing assistants to laundry workers, nutritionists, maintenance workers and even in-house beauticians.

For instance, laundry workers can be in a position to notice when patients' garments are restrictive and ill-fitting, which increases the likelihood of bedsores. All staff can help by repositioning patients during waits for food and other services. Proper nutrition goes a long way towards helping this problem as well, research suggests.

As this blog has discussed in the past, collaborative efforts can be helpful to all kinds of medical problems. Evidently such approaches are useful in dealing with this painful issue as well.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has an article on hand hygiene. Much of it is somewhat technical, categorizing different types and levels of sterilization precautions and measurements of efficacy.

If you scroll down, however, there are quite a few practical details that may be helpful. Much of it is common sense: fingernails that are long or artificial, for instance, have been linked to outbreaks of infections and the presence of pathogens. If you wear a ring, the skin under the ring is more likely to be colonized with bacteria than the rest of your hand. And, of course, wearing gloves play an important role in maintaining good hygiene.

If you scroll down even further, you'll get to Part II of the report, which is the CDC's recommendations about how to maintain hygiene in various professional contexts.

If the number of emergency rooms go down and the number of medical emergencies rise, it stands to reason that the average waiting time in emergency rooms would get longer, resulting in more problems and even deaths. That is exactly what is happening right now in the U.S, as a new study from Harvard Medical School demonstrates.

In 1997, half of all patients waited for 22 minutes or more in the emergency room. Today, they wait for 30 minutes or more.

Most disturbing is the fact that even patients with the most dire and urgent problems are subjected to greatly increased waits. From the linked article:

Even those experiencing a heart attack are not assured speedy treatment, with half waiting 20 minutes or more to be examined in 2004, up from eight minutes in 1997, the study found. The same was true for those with other serious health problems: By 2004, patients whose conditions warranted treatment within 15 minutes were waiting 14 minutes or more to see a doctor, up from 10 minutes in 1997, the study found.

These longer waits are due to a number of factors: shortage of doctors and nurses, an aging population, and the fact that for uninsured Americans the emergency room is the only method of accessing healthcare. So not only do more people go to the emergency room for non-urgent problems, but many Americans also do not have access to the preventative care that would reduce the risk of serious emergencies that need to be dealt with right away.

Out of nineteen industrialized nations, the U.S. has the most deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely, effective medical care.

Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine performed the study, looking at deaths before the age of seventy-five caused by numerous diseases and complications. They found that France performed the best by this measure--though France, and other countries that ranked higher than the U.S., spends less money on health care than the U.S. does.

Not only was the U.S. the worst in these rankings, but we Americans are also ranked four places lower than we were in the last study (which covered 1997 and 1998). We are getting worse and spending more money.

By January 1st of this year, Illinois was to have established a system for reporting and reviewing egregious hospital errors--e.g. sponges left inside patients after surgery. But it has not done so. Illinois has also failed to fulfill other elements of the hospital safety legislation the state passed four years ago. For instance, the Illinois Hospital Report Card was supposed to have been published, but is nowhere to be seen. Illinois officials are now predicting that it will be released in October.

Officials blame this failure on everything from poor leadership to lack of funding to unrealistic expectations. Whatever the cause, the failure is disappointing because--as the Consumers Union health-care expert Lisa McGiffert points out--Illinois was regarded as a role model for other states in this area.

It is safer to have a heart attack in an airport or casino than in a hospital.

Why? One reason is that many hospitals still rely on old-fashioned defibrillators rather than the newer ones found in public places. The new ones are fully automated, faster and easy to use.

Chances of surviving a heart attack are nearly 40 percent if you are defibrillated within two minutes of the attack--but fall to 22 percent if it takes longer. Hospital staffs in the study took longer than two minutes in nearly one third of all cases.

What happens when a hospital makes a mistake in medical care, and the harm to the patient results in the need for another medical treatment? It used to be that the patient was charged for this subsequent treatment, which would have been unnecessary but for the hospital's error. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), cited in the New York Times discusses the economics of this system. Indeed, the system is set up so hospitals are financially rewarded for their mistakes.

But as the NY Times article points out, Medicare has changed its rules so that it will no longer compensate hospitals for the following mistakes: objects left in patients during surgery, incompatible blood transfusions, infections from vascular catheters and other hospital-acquired problems. This does bring up the potential problem of hospitals not having financial incentive to provide good care for these medical problems, but there are laws in place mandating that hospitals provide such care, so that may not be as much of a problem as some would fear.

Shockingly, nursing homes having been giving elderly residents anti-psychotic drugs--not to combat actual psychosis, but rather to quiet symptoms of Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia and make the patients more docile and controllable.

This overuse of anti-psychotics is so rampant that it accounts for why Medicaid has recently spent more money on anti-psychotics than on any other type of pharmaceuticals.

This is not wholly due to malicious intent on the part of the nursing homes, but also on the fact that federal insurance programs are more willing to give money for drugs rather than for the extra staff that are needed to care for elderly patients with dementia.

This report highlights how medical institutions can harm the most vulnerable patients by giving them medications they do not require in order to meet economic or administrative goals.

An article in the New Yorker by Atul Gawande highlights the simple ways in which hospitals can be made less dangerous places for their patients. A checklist to make sure intensive care doctors and nurses handle catheters correctly has been proven to dramatically reduce the risk of deadly infections. Gawande focuses on the work of Peter Pronovost, MD, an intensive care specialist at Johns Hopkins Hospital who consults with hospitals around the country to spread his gospel of routinizing simple procedures. For example, on catheter infections, Pronovost's work was first published in December 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In 108 ICU's across Michigan, they were able to virtually wipe out catheter-based infection by enforcing a required checklist of five interventions: hand-washing before handling a catheter, full-body draping when inserting a central venous catheter, scrubbing the skin with chlorhexidine, avoiding catheters in the groin, and removing unneeded catheters as soon as possible. All hospitals should implement these simple ideas which can prevent deadly infections and save lives. Dr. Pronovost is a pioneer in patient safety research.

Hospitals have been getting some negative attention recently as a result of their high rates of infection. That is why it is good to hear that they are stepping up efforts to fight MRSA, one of the worst "superbugs" that infect patients in hospitals.

Their efforts can be boiled down to two categories: testing and hygiene. They are trying to make it a common practice to test surfaces and equipment and patients for the presence of these bugs. They are also encouraging hygiene by placing alcohol sanitizer dispensers in hallways and outside patient rooms, and by placing secret observers to watch if their doctors and nurses are washing their hands as often as they are supposed to.

Patients cannot do very much to ascertain whether or not their hospital is testing for MRSA, but hygiene is often much more obvious. A careful patient or family member should watch and see if there are sanitizer dispensers in their hospital's hallways, and if the healthcare providers are taking advantage of these dispensers. You should not hesitate to ask if the doctor or nurse has washed their hands, or to complain if you know that they have not. Such basic measures can prevent deadly infections.

Rhode Island Hospital has, for the third time this year, done a brain surgery on the wrong side of the patient's head.

The hospital has been fined $50,000 and has received a reprimand from the state Department of Health. In this most recent instance, the patient was 82 years old. Fortunately, the patient was unhurt by the mistake. However, in one of the previous instances of this mistake at this hospital, the patient died as a result.

Rhode Island Hospital has said that it will be conducting a review of its procedures and implementing reforms. One such reform would be to allow nurses greater power in ensuring that procedures are followed correctly. Another would be to mandate better verification of surgery plans, which would require better communication between surgeons and other doctors. These reforms highlight a major factor in averting medical errors: teamwork. The multiple healthcare professionals involved in taking care of a patient need to be empowered to speak up if they see something going wrong. They also need to know what the others are doing, and to make sure that they are not acting contrary to the recommendations and instructions of other healthcare providers. Performing a surgery on the wrong side of the head is only one possible thing that could go wrong in the absence of communication. Another example would be giving a patient medications that, combined with medicine the patient is already taking, could cause problems. Such errors can be minimized through proper communication between healthcare professionals.

For more information: When Surgeons Cut the Wrong Body Part

Going to a hospital and getting even sicker is an all-too-common occurrence for many in the U.S.A., thanks to the high hospital infection rates.

Indiana University School of Medicine researcher Dr. Bradley Doebbeling is using a $400,000 grant to study this problem and come up with solutions. The study will take eighteen months and will require participating hospitals to come up with better hand hygiene policies and screen patients for MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). MRSA is the most common example of what is known as a “superbug,” a strain of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

Participating hospitals will also have to record the number of patients who get MRSA—something federal and state governments do not require hospitals to do.

The hospitals in the study say that they are already noticing results. This is unsurprising considering how straightforward the study’s experimental policies are: hand-washing and screening. Learning that such basic measures help prevent sickness is hardly a massive discovery.

Infections contracted in hospitals can be a serious threat to patients' health. The CDC estimates that roughly two million patients per year develop infections in hospitals, out of which approximately 90,000 per year die. The Consumers' Union discusses how many states have adopted laws requiring hospitals to disclose rates of patient infection, and how more states are considering such measures.

Disclosing infection rates will hopefully lead to better patient safety and stronger compliance with prevention protocols. It is a good idea for people to remain aware of the infection rates at local hospitals.

Thankfully, some hospitals are beginning to fight the problem more aggressively. Although many people who work in large U.S. hospitals view infections as either a non-issue or as inevitable, hospitals are beginning to take more severe measures to curb them.

As described in the July 27th, 2007 issue of the New York TImes, three state legislatures have passed bills requiring hospitals to routinely test high-risk patients. The article also notes that that CDC projections estimate that one out of 22 patients would become infected while hospitalized, and that some European countries have had success in aggressively fighting infections.

This is a late response to a problem that has existed for a long time, as an earlier Times article documented on the Veterans Affairs website indicates.

Infection is often caused by carelessness about hygiene, and can lead to tragedy—for instance, the article refers to a woman who lost her mother because of an infection that was probably contracted because a caregiver had unwashed hands. Patients ought to be aware of this issue. If possible, it is a good idea to seek out hospitals where some anti-infection measures are taken.

The July 24th, 2007 issue of the New York Times Health Section discusses recent findings indicating that a lower nurse-to-patient ratio leads to more patients on respirators getting pneumonia.

One of the Swiss researchers who performed the study (involving 936 patients) said that with fewer nurses, each nurse has a larger workload to shoulder and therefore has less ability to properly follow all hygiene-related rules. Patients should be aware how staffing problems can affect their standard of care.

This issue has drawn the attention of legislators. For instance, California has passed a law mandating a minimum nurse-to-patient ratio, with the support of the nurses' union. It has also received attention on a national scale, including from Congress--for example, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois introduced a bill to set minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals.