In this article we're going to dive a little deeper in talking about errors as they apply to malpractice.
It's pretty common to talk about errors in regard to a medical setting and trying to figure out "what went wrong?" Or, in relation to the patient, what were the consequences and what happened to them? Unfortunately, most of the consequences we see are those that result in the patient's injury, or worse, death.
Let's take the drug Lidocaine, for example. There are a number of errors involving this drug but the statistics don't tell us anything about why the errors occur. If they're this common there must be a reason. Why?
The thing is, what we don't see are the errors that are committed and then caught before they were completed and became serious. The reason we don't see them is because they are caught, corrected, and in turn prevent the patient from suffering harm, thus preventing any action of malpractice. The variables involved with why errors occur don't tell us how many errors occur because of the probability of substitution errors on the night shift, or by physicians, or by pharmacists. Determining what causes an error is vital in determining if a new drug should be released or a new procedure should be allowed to continue.
For example, just recently the first face transplant was performed. In spite of the fact that the risks were told to the patient before the procedure, there could still be more serious complications than what were discussed that could ultimately lead to a malpractice suit. In this case, the first thing that needs to be determined is if the procedure itself should be allowed to continue as it is new and we know very little about it.
To put this in a more general explanation, an error must be evaluated based on what is available as treatment for the particular condition in the first place. All factors must be considered including surgical procedure, drugs available, equipment available and the current training for the physician that is available. Was the right act substituted by a wrong act or was the procedure or drug or equipment faulty to begin with thus making success highly unlikely?
Then there is the matter of what is called consequence. In other words, something is going to happen, most likely bad, based on the error that was committed. In some cases the consequence is mild. In other cases the consequence is serious. These are the cases that usually make it to court in the form of a malpractice suit.
Again, this all comes back to what we as humans can be held accountable for. If the error is caused by the doctor making an obvious mistake in a procedure that has been done for years with no problem then most likely he is guilty of malpractice. But if the error occurs because of faulty procedure or equipment then more data is needed to determine if the doctor is indeed at fault.
In the next article we're going to discuss what can be done about errors.
Listed below are more articles related to the above article from the "Malpractice" article category.
People interested in the above article "Malpractice - Talking About Errors" are also interested in the related articles listed below:
Physicians and nurses are expected to have the knowledge training and experience required to detect and react to fetal distress. They are also supposed to dedicate suitable attention to following their patient during labor and delivery. Should they fail to do so their actions might contribute to considerable harm to the unborn baby. In such cases they might be liable for medical malpractice.
The loss of a baby in childbirth is a painful experience for a parent. This article looks at a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that a physician ridiculed the mother for seeking a C-section once she realized she was unable to deliver naturally and them decided to employ a vacuum extractor but did so incorrectly and caused the death of her child.
Men have a 1 in 6 lifetime chance of having prostate cancer. If detected and treated while in the early stages prostate cancer has a roughly 97 per cent 5-year survival rate. If not discovered until it has metastasized, there is presently no known cure. This article considers the issue of medical malpractice arising out of a delayed diagnosis by looking at a published settlement in a case which claimed that a delay in diagnosis by his physician led to the metastasis of the plaintiff's prostate cancer.
Normally physicians acknowledge that raised PSA levels create a need to advise the patient and to do more testing to rule out prostate cancer. Should the patient has prostate cancer not telling the patient and allowing time to go by absent diagnostic testing risks allowing the cancer to spread. If this occurs the patient may have a medical malpractice case against the doctor.
Being informed by a doctor that one just has hemorrhoids and that one does not have to be concerned about blood in the stool can be very comforting. But unless the doctor has ruled out\eliminated the possibility of colon cancer, the patient might not uncover that he or she has it before it is too late. This article looks at how a delayed diagnosis because a physician erroneously assumed that blood was from hemorrhoids might amount to treatment that does not meet the standard of care and result in a medical malpractice case.
People recognize that paramedics lack the level of knowledge, training, or experience as physicians. Yet, when they do not notice signs that a patient is in a medical emergency (such as a pregnant woman experiencing a placental abruption) that needs fast transportation to a hospital, they might be liable for malpractice.People expect that when there is a medical emergency paramedics will have the knowledge, training and skill to correctly deal with the emergency.This means that they will be able to act fast and appropriately. It also means providing care that meets the applicable medical standard of care.A failure to do so can result in a malpractice lawsuit.
Parents typically assume that their kids will be safe from motor vehicle accidents as they head to school. However, possibly they ought to not be so sure. Look at an actual matter in which a car entered a mid-block crosswalk that was adjacent to a high school, hit a fifteen year old student who was crossing the street and who sustained a traumatic brain injury. The matter resulted in a jury verdict in excess of $9.0 million.
