Archive for the ‘obstetrics’ Category

The death of a baby – the economic realities

Monday, June 6th, 2011

I recently wrote a blog about the grief that parents suffer when they lose an unborn child. At the risk of sounding crass, I want to now discuss the economics of lawsuits involving the death of an unborn child. For those contemplating taking legal action for the loss of their child, I hope this provides some useful information for you to consider.

Maryland courts have carved out specific rules for when an unborn child is considered a person capable of recovering damages in the event of death. The primary rule is that if a baby is actually born alive, no matter at what gestational age, that baby is considered a person with legal rights. So, if a 20-week baby is born alive and then dies one minute later, that baby is considered a “person,” and a lawsuit can be filed on behalf of the estate for that baby’s pain and suffering, otherwise known as a Survival Action.

(This leads to an interesting question – does a fetus feel pain? See Related Links below). The parents of the unborn child can also file what is known as a Wrongful Death action for their own economic and non-economic damages resulting from the death of their baby, primarily their grief and emotional loss over the death of their child. Survival actions and Wrongful Death actions are two separate claims, although they are usually pursued in the same lawsuit.

When a baby dies before birth, however, another question has to be asked: was the baby viable or not? Viability means that a baby is able to live outside the womb, even though he or she may require serious medical intervention. The current thinking is that babies are viable at around 22 weeks. The courts have made the rule that if an unborn child dies before the age of viability, that baby is not yet a “person” and has no legal rights. There can be no Survival Action and there can be no Wrongful Death action. If, however, the baby has reached the age of viability, then the baby is considered “a person” with legal rights, even if the baby was never born alive. Confusing? Yes it is.

The Maryland Courts were following the ruling in Roe v. Wade that a mother had a constitutional right to abort a non-viable baby. Therefore, a non-viable baby was not legally considered a person. If the baby was not a person, then no lawsuit could be filed on behalf of the estate of that baby, nor could the parents file a wrongful death action. So in order for a Survival Action or a Wrongful Death action to lie for an unborn baby, that baby has to have reached at least 22 weeks of gestation.

To make things even more confusing, the Maryland courts have carved out an exception to the above rules. Let’s consider the example of a non-viable baby (i.e., less than 22 weeks gestation) who dies before birth as a result of someone else’s negligence that injures the mother.

A common situation occurs when the mother (let’s say she’s 8 weeks pregnant) is injured in a car accident and suffers a miscarriage as a result. Looking at the above rules, one would think that no claim is allowed. However, the courts have said not so fast. In this circumstance, while the mother cannot recover for the grief of losing her child (because the child is non-viable and, therefore, not legally a person), she can recover for similar damages, including:

  • The depression, anguish, and grief caused by the termination of the pregnancy;
  • The manner in which the pregnancy was terminated;
  • Having to carry a baby which was killed by someone else’s tortious conduct; and
  • Having to witness the stillborn child or the fetal tissue that was to be her child.

I realize this itemization of damages sounds awfully close to the damages permitted in a Wrongful Death action – the very damages that are not allowed in the case of a non-viable baby. It is confusing, to say the least. The courts are trying to find a way to compensate a woman who is injured and loses her non-viable baby as a result of someone else’s negligence, while remaining true to prior precedent in this state that there is no Wrongful Death action allowed in the case of a non-viable baby.

Lastly, keep in mind that Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages applies to cases involving the death of an unborn baby. Economic damages (medical bills, lost wages) are usually very small in such cases. There are no lost wages because we’re talking about a baby, and the medical bills are usually small.

The value of these cases is in the emotional pain and suffering of the parents, and the physical pain and suffering of the baby (assuming a viable baby). Under Maryland law, the maximum allowable recovery for such a claim is $868,750 in a medical negligence action (assuming Mom and Dad both file a wrongful death action).

Under the hypothetical of the mother seeking recovery for the loss of a non-viable baby, the maximum allowable recovery is $695,000 if the allegation is medical negligence, and $755,000 if the allegation is non-medical negligence. (The Maryland Legislature has for some strange reason imposed different caps depending on whether the negligence is medical or non-medical, e.g., a car accident).

As for the question of whether an unborn child feels pain, please click on the link below for a blog by Brian Nash on this very issue.

Related Nash and Associates Links

Does a fetus feel pain

Hysteria over malpractice “crisis”

 

 

 

Home Births – Increasingly Popular But Are They Safe?

Saturday, June 4th, 2011

image from hobomama.com

Many little girls grow up fantasizing about what they want to be when they grow up; perhaps they want to be the President, or an artist, or a doctor, or an architect. Others might be daydreaming about being a princess or an astronaut. However, I do not know of many little girls who grow up dreaming about how they would like to bring a child into this world. Yet once these girls grow up into adults, many of them feel strongly about having a birth plan that is just as magical as all of their other dreams. Images of a comfortable labor or a display of womanly strength may play a role; perhaps they want music or a particular image available to them. Some want as few interventions as possible, while others would prefer an epidural at the hospital door. No matter what vision of childbirth a woman has, the desired end result is almost universally a healthy child.

Home Birth Rates Decreasing for Years…Now Dramatically Increase

It is no wonder that women often have strong feelings about what they want for their birth experience and how to best accomplish their goals. Historically, women gave birth at home. That practice changed and by the early 1950s, almost all women in the United States gave birth in a hospital setting. According to an NPR article about a recent study published in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care, “the percentage of home births in the U.S. had been dropping slowly but steadily every year” from 1989 to 2004. Surprisingly, the trends reversed dramatically in the four-year period between 2004 and 2008. The study found a 20 percent increase in the number of women in the United States who gave birth at home between 2004 and 2008. Despite this increase, we are still talking about a small percentage of total births – less than 1 percent.

Increase is Mostly in Non-Hispanic White Women

A twenty percent increase is still a very large amount in a 4-year period. I was interested in the implications of this change. First, one of the most surprising (to me) findings in the study was that the change was not seen across the board. The article explained that “[m]ost of the rise was due to an increase in home births among non-Hispanic white women.” A New York Times article said that:

[t]he turnabout was driven by an increase of 28 percent in home births among non-Hispanic white women, for whom one in 100 births occurred at home in 2008. That rate was three to six times higher than for any other race or ethnic group.

I did not find any explanation or hypothesis for why this particular segment of the population was increasingly choosing home births over hospital births. Though the study does suggest that it was a change by choice as the article explained that “[r]esearchers found among the 25 states that tracked planning status in 2008, 87 percent of births that occurred at home were planned.”

Are Home Births Advisable? Are they Safe?

So, is the increase in home births a good thing? Certainly, I support a woman being comfortable and happy in her choice for a birth plan. I have given birth twice and know that it can be both one of the more uncomfortable and simultaneously one of the most overwhelmingly joyous moments of a woman’s life. A home birth affords a mother a setting that is likely more comfortable and certainly more familiar than most hospitals. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, women really just want a healthy outcome for both them and their baby. Can a home birth accomplish this goal?

Most of the medical community, certainly most associated with hospitals, say that home births are not the safest option for babies; however, neither are all hospital births.

Leading members of the medical community respond that hospitals — where 99 percent of all U.S. births take place, according to the CDC — are the safest places to have a baby, with modern medical interventions available.

The newborn death rate is two to three times higher for planned home births than for those that take place in hospitals, said George Macones, chairman of the committee on obstetrical practice at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has long opposed home births. Some home-birth advocates say such studies are flawed.

“There’s no question that if you come to a hospital, there’s a one in three chance you end up with a C-section, and it’s certainly true that some of them aren’t medically indicated,” Macones said. But at home, where there is less monitoring of the baby, there is more chance of a bad outcome, he said. “Obstetrics can be a risky business. Things can go wrong.”

From a Washington Post article

Home births, even those attended by a certified nurse midwife, do not provide the medical technology and care that can be present at in a hospital setting. Perhaps this is what many women may be trying to escape when choosing to give birth at home. I know that normally I would rather stay out of a hospital at all costs since hospitals may raise the risks associated with medical interventions and infections. Additionally, the high C-section rate at hospitals may also subject women to unnecessary risks. This is one of the concerns mentioned in the New York Times article:

Other research has suggested many women choose home birth because of concern about high rates of Caesarean sections and other interventions at hospitals, said the new study’s lead author, Marian F. MacDorman, a statistician with the National Center for Health Statistics. “The two trends are not unrelated,” Dr. MacDorman said.

Additionally, the NPR article reports that the new study published in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care found that birth outcomes are improving for babies born at home:

Researchers … found a statistically significant improvement in birth outcomes for babies born in the home. Infants who were born preterm fell by 16 percent. The percentage of home births that resulted in infants with a low birth weight also fell by 17 percent…One reason for the better outcomes could be that more women are planning to give birth at home. Researchers found among the 25 states that tracked planning status in 2008, 87 percent of births that occurred at home were planned. MacDorman also suggested that midwives could be getting better at choosing low-risk women to be candidates for home birth.

Are Birth Outcomes at Home Improving Because Lower Risk Mothers Are Delivering at Home?

Now this idea is one that resonated with me. Perhaps the key to the safety of home births is which women are giving birth at home. I remembered reading a story in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago about a local midwife who was convicted in a baby’s death. What stuck with me about this tragic story was that the mother did not seem (at least to me) to be a good candidate for a home birth. A couple of small paragraphs late in the article explain:

It was a case most obstetricians would call high-risk: The first-time mother in Alexandria was 43, and the baby was breech, which essentially means upside-down from the normal head-first position.

The baby’s position wasn’t the problem, Carr said; the problem was that the baby’s head became stuck.

Two women who supported the mother during the September delivery said in interviews that both Carr and the mother knew the risks involved in such a delivery. They both said everything was going well, until it wasn’t.

This sounds like a horrible accident that could have happened even with the best of intentions. However, another Washington Post article explained the details surrounding how the midwife, Karen Carr, came to be working with this mother:

[Law enforcement officials] said Carr was unlicensed in Virginia, agreed to perform a high-risk breech delivery in a woman’s home after other care providers refused, and ignored warning signs that the delivery was not going well.

Ultimately, prosecutors said, Carr allowed the baby to remain with his head stuck in the birth canal for 20 minutes and then, after delivery, tried to resuscitate him for 13 minutes before calling for emergency medical help. The boy never gained consciousness or displayed brain activity, and he died two days later at Children’s National Medical Center in the District when life support was removed.

The parents sought out Carr in August after nurses at a licensed birthing center in Alexandria said they could not deliver at home because of the fetus’s position in the womb; breech births are most often delivered by Caesarean section because the risk of complications from a breech delivery — in which the baby is positioned feet-first — are high, according to medical officials.

Carr agreed to do a home delivery and, prosecutors said, declined to call for help when things got out of control. A medical examiner ruled that the death was due to complications from a breech birth at home.

While the midwife might have been performing outside the standard of care, my question in reading these articles is whether it is reasonable for a midwife to agree to a home delivery for a high risk mother, who is of advanced maternal age, whose child is breech, and who has already been turned down for delivery by a licensed birthing center based on the risks. It seems to me that the midwife and the family were taking a grave risk with this child’s life – a risk that the parents must have at least somewhat acknowledged since they sought out the home birth after being turned away by the birthing center. To what degree is it the midwife’s responsibility to assist a woman who insists on a home birth despite the risks? To what degree is it her responsibility to refuse to participate if the risks to the child are unacceptably high?

Does Insurance Matter?

Finally, I wonder what role insurance will play in the increasing number of mothers choosing to give birth at home. Vermont’s governor just signed a bill into law that will require private health insurance companies to pay for midwives during home births.  According to the Forbes article about the new bill, Vermont joins New York, New Hampshire and New Mexico in this requirement. Vermont’s rate of home birth is the highest in the country at 3 percent. The bill is expected to lower costs for low-risk births for women who choose to birth at home. I wonder, however, whether the choice to have a home birth that is reimbursed by insurance will open the door to additional mothers choosing to birth at home even if the risks are high.

What Do You Think?

At the end of the day, it seems that home births may be a good option for some low-risk women who have the support of a well trained midwife and accessible medical back-up in case of problems. That being said, for those at higher risk, perhaps there need to be other safeguards in place.

What do you think? Are you or have you been involved in home births? How are woman normally empowered to have the birth they want if they are high risk? What can be done to make the choice safer for the baby?

Related Posts:

The Grief of Losing an Unborn Child

Laughing Gas Making Its Way Back into the Labor and Delivery Department

The Grief of Losing an Unborn Child

Wednesday, June 1st, 2011

Image from HopeforParents.org

Fetal Death In Utero. It sounds so clinical, so devoid of meaning. Maybe that is by design. Medical terms have a way of masking the real human suffering that is being described.

Adenocarcinoma instead of cancer. Cerebral hemorrhage instead of stroke…and “fetal death in utero” instead of “losing an unborn child.” The medical terms are necessary, but they don’t capture the essence of the diagnosis. As one woman told me, “I didn’t lose my fetus. I lost my baby.”

For any parent, the loss of a child is the most agonizing experience imaginable. As the father of two, I can’t even imagine being told that your child has died. I can’t imagine the life-long grief that follows. I almost decided not to write about this topic for that very reason – I didn’t know the pain of losing a child so who was I to write on it? But other times I’ve waded into topics despite a lack of personal involvement because the issue has touched those whom I care about. For example, I’m not a parent of a special needs child, but I’ve written on that topic because I am close to people who are raising special needs children. Their experiences deserve to be shared.  The same is true here.

For parents who have lost an unborn child, the sense of grief is no different than if the child had been born and then died. Unfortunately, our society seems less sympathetic to the loss because there is no infant that we have seen and gotten to know. We all recognize the agony of losing an older child. Even if we haven’t experienced it ourselves, we can at least try to understand how sickeningly awful it must be. We can then offer our support and love and condolences to those who have experienced it. With an unborn child, however, it’s different. We have a tendency to minimize the grief associated with losing an unborn child, as if the fact that the child wasn’t yet born makes him or her less real. Even medical providers are guilty of this. I’ve had women tell me that their doctors tend to treat miscarriage or stillbirth as a medical condition, not the loss of a loved one. For the parents of such children, however, the loss is deep and real and long-lasting.

Donnica Moore, M.D., an Ob/Gyn and the author of a book entitled “Women’s Health for Life,” summed it up well when interviewed by the New York Times:

Couples can feel there’s no socially accepted way to grieve. If you lose a family member, people know how to do that, they know how to support you and grieve with you. But this is new territory for a lot of us. It’s a tragedy for people who have gone through it that might not be on the radar of people who have not.

I’ve recently had the pleasure (strange word, I know, given the circumstances) of representing two wonderful families who lost children. One couple lost their 9-year-old son who died of a correctible heart condition that his pediatrician failed to detect, and the other couple lost their unborn daughter when the mother was 37 weeks pregnant after being sent home from the hospital where she had gone complaining of decreased fetal movement. It’s easy to see the grief for the first couple. One day they have a little boy going to school, playing, doing homework, and the next day he’s gone. With the second couple, it’s harder to see the grief, but it’s there. I’ll share their story briefly.

This was the first child for Michelle (not her real name) and her husband. They had already decorated the nursery and picked out a name. One evening (believe it or not, Michelle had just attended a baby shower earlier in the day) she felt that the baby wasn’t moving as much as usual and called her doctor’s office. They told her to go to the hospital, which she did. At the hospital, she and her baby were evaluated and told that everything was OK. She was told to go home and keep her regularly scheduled appointment the next day. When she went to her doctor the next morning, however, the doctor could not find a heartbeat. Her daughter, unfortunately, was gone. To make things even worse, Michelle then had to carry her deceased daughter inside her for another full day before she gave birth.

Michelle did her best to move on with her life. She continued to work. She and her husband had another child. But for the entire time I represented her (to its credit, the hospital approached us about resolving the case early on) there was not a single time I talked to her that she did not start to cry in discussing her first baby – the daughter who should now be three years old. She still grieves for the loss of her daughter, wonders why it happened, wonders what her daughter went through in those final moments. She asks herself whether she did anything wrong, whether she should have been more forceful that night in the hospital. These questions don’t go away for her. They’re the same questions that any mother would ask after losing her child – whether it was an unborn child or an older child.

We all need to do a better job of recognizing that the pain of losing an unborn child – whether by miscarriage or stillbirth – is deep and long-lasting. If you know someone who has lost an unborn child, don’t shy away from him or her. A simple and genuine “I’m sorry for your loss” is a good starter. Be there to offer support and talk just like you would if the child were older. Don’t expect it to go away in a matter of weeks, and don’t assume that a subsequent pregnancy somehow erases the pain of losing the previous child; it doesn’t. Also, try to avoid clichés, e.g., “everything happens for a reason,” “I’m sure you’ll be able to have more kids.” While such sayings are meant well, clichés tend to minimize the degree of loss. If you don’t know what to say, it’s perfectly fine to say, “I don’t know what to say.”

If you yourself have lost an unborn child, you need to treat this loss like you would the death of a loved one. It is a long, slow, painful process that not everyone will fully understand. That can add to the sense of loss because you may get the feeling that people are expecting you to be over it already. Don’t let their artificial time-tables dictate your own personal grieving. You may also experience feelings of guilt, asking yourself if you did something during your pregnancy that caused this (in almost every case, the answer to that question is a resounding no). You may feel resentful toward other parents or children, or find it difficult to be around children, especially those who are the same age as your child would be. You may wonder if you will be able to have another baby. All of these feelings are completely normal, but they will take time to resolve.

Additional Links

Here are some good links to learn more about the grieving process for unborn children.

National Share

AmericanPregnancy.org

Related Nash and Associates Links

Pregnancy-related gingivitis and prematurity

 

 

 

Laughing Gas Making Its Way Back Into The Labor And Deliver Department

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

According to a recent article published by MSNBC, laughing gas or nitrous oxide is making its way back into labor and delivery units in American hospitals. Although laughing gas has long been used as a pain relief in various countries, including Canada and the U.K., it has lost its popularity in the U.S. Well, maybe not for much longer.

It appears that a number of hospitals are now considering making laughing gas available as a pain relief measure for women in labor. A hospital in San Francisco and another in Seattle have been using laughing gas in their labor and delivery units for a while. Hospitals like Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center plan to offer laughing gas to laboring mothers in the immediate future. Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s plan is currently being reviewed by the federal government, and arrangements are presently being made for the procurement of delivery equipment for laughing gas. Vanderbilt University Medical Center may begin offering laughing gas as well later this year.

History

Laughing gas is not a new pain relief method. Its use had become very common in hospitals when Joseph Thomas Clover invented the gas-ether inhaler in 1876. Particularly, its use in the labor and delivery setting had been very common before the introduction of epidural and spinal anesthesia. Because laughing gas is unable to eliminate pain to the same degree as epidural or spinal anesthesia, it simply could not compete with the more sophisticated pain relief alternatives, which entered the marker in the 30s and 40s.

What is laughing gas?

Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas or sweet air, is a chemical compound with the formula N2O. It is an oxide of nitrogen. At room temperature, it is a colorless non-flammable gas, with a slightly sweet odor and taste. It is used in surgery and dentistry for its anesthetic and analgesic effects. It is known as “laughing gas” due to the euphoric effects of inhaling it, a property that has led to its recreational use as a dissociative anesthetic.

Laughing gas as an important pain relief alternative

Although laughing gas can only take the edge off pain, it just might be an important alternative to other more conventional pain relief methods. The patient does not have to rely on an anesthesiologist to administer the gas. The patient can herself choose how much gas to administer at any time. The effects of the gas are not long-lasting. Therefore, the patient does not have to recover in a post anesthesia care unit. Importantly, there is no associated loss of sensation and motor function during the delivery process. As such, the gas does not interfere with the woman’s ability to breath and push during labor. Laughing gas is also not known to have any adverse effects on the baby in utero.

The administration of laughing gas does not require any invasive medical procedures. By contrast, consider epidural anesthesia: An epidural requires that an epidural catheter be threaded into the epidural space, which is only about 2 mm wide. Any mistake and the consequences can be catastrophic. Epidurals have been known to cause spinal cord injury secondary t0 toxicity, spinal cord infarcts, severe hypotension, paraplegia, epidural bleeding, and even death. None of these complications are associated with the use of laughing gas.

: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TO4sOgiIeU]

According to Suzanne Serat, a nurse midwife at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center:

We have a number of people who don’t want to feel the pain of labor, and nitrous oxide would not be a good option for them. They really need an epidural, and that’s perfect for them. […] Then we have a number of people who are going to wait and see what happens, and when they’re in labor, decide they’d like something and then the only option for them is an epidural but they don’t need something that strong. So they would choose to use something in the middle, but we just don’t have anything in the middle.

Nitrous oxide may just prove to be that middle option for many women who prefer to give birth without the use of powerful and potentially dangerous analgesic/anesthetic agents. If you are an expectant mother, ask your obstetrician if nitrous oxide is a pain relief option that may be available to you during labor.

Image from cartoonstock.com

For more information about epidural anesthesia and epidural complications, you may want to read these posts too:

Having an epidural when you deliver your baby? 3 Questions to ask the doctor!

5 Questions to Ask Your Obstetrician Before You Go to the Hospital

Epidural Analgesia – What Should an Expectant Mother Consider? What are the risks?

Week in Review: If you missed this past week’s blogs – catch up!

Sunday, April 10th, 2011

This past week was a busy one for our bloggers. It was also a very busy week in our law practice. Over the last two months, we have also had two new lawyers join us – Sarah Keogh and Jason Penn. Sarah has contributed a number of posts already. Jason , who just started this past Monday, will soon be sharing his contributions, thoughts and comments with you as well. We’re very happy to have both of them. I’m sure you join us in wishing them a very warm welcome.

Last week our writers covered a number of topics related to health, medicine, child safety, medical technology and patient safety. We started the week off with a piece by Brian Nash on some key facts women need to be aware of when having an epidural for labor, delivery and post-partum pain relief.

Epidurals

There can be no doubt that thousands of epidurals are administered to women every day throughout this country. This form of analgesia (pain relief) has become probably the most popular form of anesthetic management and apparently is generally believed to be essentially risk free. As this week’s piece, Having an epidural when you have your baby? 3 questions to ask the doctor, reports, some literature gives the figure of complications from epidurals as high as 23% - ranging in severity from minor inconveniences, to life-long major disabilities and even death.

This particular piece was written as a result of several cases in which we have been involved when women, who had undergone an epidural, became essentially paralyzed from the waist down. We raise some questions for women to ask the doctor and suggest they just might want to ask those questions before they find themselves in the process of labor or when they are going through the recovery phase of having given birth to their baby. We believe it’s an important piece for women – and frankly for all – to read so that they have a much better idea of what they should expect with an epidural and what the risks and benefits are of this wonderful yet potentially life-altering anesthetic technique.

Shaken-Baby-Syndrome

On Wednesday, Jon Stefanuca again brought to the public’s attention a problem that is probably as old as childbirth. Everyone who has had the experience of taking care of a child – particularly a baby – knows that along with the joy of parenting comes the physical and emotional toll on parents and care-givers. The human condition makes us all susceptible to being less than completely tolerant, forgiving and gentle with little ones when we are under stress, frustrated or just plain exhausted. The response to the persistent crying can simply not be “a good shake.”

Medicine and science (and unfortunately the courtroom) have given a name to a syndrome of injury babies can suffer when that “just a good shake” approach is used. While a parent or care-giver may think it unimaginable to strike a child, they may not realize just now much harm they can do with “just a good shake.” Jon brings this information and some expert tips and tricks on how to deal with these difficult times parents and care-givers face in their everyday lives in his piece Shaken Baby Syndrome – What we all should know to prevent child abuse.

Makena: New Anti-Prematurity Drug

Thursday, Sarah Keogh reported on a relatively new drug called Makena, which has been found to help pregnant women, who have previously had a premature infant. I say “relatively” since according to Sarah’s piece, a compounding pharmacy could and was making this medication prior to the FDA giving K-V Pharmaceutical Company the exclusive rights to manufacture this drug for a period of 7 years.

Read Sarah’s piece, Makena: Drug to fight prematurity leads to major firestorm, and see what the controversy is all about. How could people possible be upset with a drug that can fight premature birth? Prematurity is one of the major causes of significant childbirth injuries such as cerebral palsy. Sarah’s blog makes it all too clear why people are upset and why the March of Dimes withdrew its sponsorship for Makena.

Medical Technology and Patient Safety

The week ended with Part II of my series on medical technology and whether all the new toys, bells and whistles of our modern healthcare system are truly advancing safe, efficient and effective delivery of healthcare. The week’s piece focuses on perhaps one of the largest advances in the healthcare industry – electronic medical records (EMR).

The blog, Medical Technology and Patient Safety – Part II – EMR’s (electronic medical records), brings a lawyer’s perspective to this topic. Much has already been written – and frankly will continue to be written – about EMR’s by the medical profession. Controversy has filed the pages of journals and at times probably slowed traffic on the internet (okay – maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration) since this new marvelous technological advance was rolled-out in our medical institutions.  Those writing and fighting about it have been the end-users themselves – the medical professionals, who have to deal with the issues and flaws that have surfaced with this wonderful new technology. I thought it was about time to tell you how this plays out by another end-user – the lawyer who now deals with EMR’s. This piece is also intended as the foundation for what we as lawyer have seen play-out in terms of patient safety and health as a result of EMR implementation.

Sneak Peak of the Week Ahead

I anticipate that next week we’ll be seeing Jason Penn with his first blog on a recent report about numerous safety violations by hospitals in our practice jurisdictions – Maryland and Washington, D.C. Mike Sanders will be bringing to our readers aN old but back-in-the-news report on super infections, which still seem to be – unfortunately – thriving in our nation’s hospitals. We’ll start off this coming week with a piece by Theresa Neumann, our highly acclaimed in-house physician’s assistant expert, on spinal stroke. We all know about strokes that can damage the brain. Theresa will be sharing her insights on an equally devastating stroke of the spinal cord. I also suspect – shhh – that we’ll be reading more from Sarah Keogh this coming week. If the practice of law doesn’t get too much in the way, I am also hoping to share with you some real life examples – from a lawyer’s perspective – of just how EMR’s may not be advancing the causes of patient safety and health.

As with all our blogs, we sincerely invite you to not only read our thoughts and comments but to also share yours with us and our readers. Our latest stats show that around 10,000 pages are viewed by our readers and visitors every month! We sincerely thank all of you, who have taken the time out of your busy lives to read our offerings in The Eye Opener – Views and Opinions from the Nash Community. We invite you to share our posts with your friends and colleagues. Don’t forget to sign-up for easy delivery to your email inbox. Last – but certainly not least – come join our social media communities on Facebook and Twitter.

The Week in Review: did you miss last week’s posts on health, safety, medicine, law and healthcare? A sneak preview of the week ahead.

Saturday, March 26th, 2011

Eye Opener - Nash & Associates Blog

This week we are starting a weekly posting of our blogs of this past week, some key blogs of interest to our more than 6,500 monthly readers, and a sneak preview of what’s coming next week. We would really like for you to join our community of readers, so don’t forget to hit the RSS Feedburner button or subscribe to our blog, Eye Opener. We share with you our thoughts, insights and analysis of what’s new in the law, the world of law and medicine, health, patient and consumer safety as well as a host of other topics that we deal with as lawyers on a daily basis in trying to serve the needs of our clients.

For those of you on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, we have a vibrant presence on those social networks as well. Hit the icon(s) of your choice and become part of our ever-growing social network community. Share your thoughts, share our posts, give us your feedback on what YOU would like to hear about.

This Past Week

Birth Defect Updates: Warnings About Opioid Use Before and During Pregnancy In this post, Sarah Keogh, explored a new report which is vital information for women who are pregnant or thinking about becoming pregnant. Opiods, narcotic pain killers such as morphine, codeine, hydrocodone and oxycodone, are a valuable part of a physician’s drug armamentarium, but they can have significant implications for a fetus if taken during pregnancy or even just before a woman become pregnant. Read Sarah’s important piece, be informed and learn why you should discuss the use of any such drugs with your obstetrician/gynecologist before taking them.

 

Doctors Disciplined by Their Own Hospitals Escape Actions by Licensing Boards. Who’s at Fault? Brian Nash, founder of the firm, writes about a serious problem with this country’s medical licensing boards, who have failed, at an alarming rate, to take disciplinary action against physicians, who have had their hospital privileges revoked, suspended or curtailed for issues such as sub-standard care, moral transgressions and the like. Public Citizen brought this story to light; we analyze the issue and share our thoughts on this serious patient health and safety issue.

Decreasing Obesity Risks in Children: Another Benefit of Breastfeeding A mom herself and an advocate for public health childhood obesityand safety throughout her legal career, Sarah Keogh reports on a recent study covered by the Baltimore Sun about the long-term benefits of breastfeeding for at least six months. The issue for many, however, is – how can a family of two income earners afford to do this? Does our society and the workplace really lend itself to this practice? Read Sarah’s compelling piece and share your experience and thoughts.

The Week Ahead

Sneak preview of what’s ahead during the week of March 28, 2011:

medical technology

Brian Nash begins a series on the issue of medical technology and patient health/safety. Is the medical community being properly trained in the proper and safe use of all the new medical devices that are hitting our hospitals, clinics and medical offices? Is the rush to have the newest, shiniest and “best” new medical device really advancing the safe and effective delivery of healthcare in our country? Here’s a sneak preview…

Dr. Roper and so many other dedicated healthcare professionals are faced daily with the same issue – “…challenged by the task of putting lofty ideas into practice at the local level. I remain very committed to the effort, but we are daily challenged to put the best ideas into practice.” Put another way – at least for me – taking public healthcare policy and practices and making a much better widget.

As these lofty concepts were debated, published and analyzed, technology streaked along with its new bells and whistles at what some might call an amazing – almost mystifying – pace. Did you really envision yourself 25 years ago sitting with your iPhone or iPad and scouring the world’s news, chatting with your friends and followers on the other side of the planet, watching the latest streaming video of March Madness or sharing every random thought you have on Twitter or Facebook?

Some top posts you may have missed

What happens when your surgeon has been up all night and you are being wheeled into the operating room to be his or her next surgical case? We looked at an article from The New England Journal of Medicine that addressed this patient safety issue and made recommendations for change.  See our posting entitled A Surgeon’s Sleep Deprivation and Elective Surgery-Not a good (or safe) combination.

Dr. Kevin Pho, who is the well known editor and contributor of KevinMD.com, wrote a piece in which he espoused his belief that medical malpractice cases really do not improve patient safety. Having read this piece and finding that this was just too much to digest, Brian Nash wrote a counter-piece entitled Malpractice System Doesn’t Improve Patient Safety – Oh Really? What this led to was cross-posting by Dr. Kevin Pho on our blog, Eye Opener, and our posting on his blog. Our blog post (as best I can tell) led to one of the all-time highest postings of comments by readers of KevinMD. One thing all participants in the “debate” learned – we are both passionate about our positions. Read what led to this firestorm.

 

Smoking and Secondhand Smoke Increase Risk for Birth Defects and Stillbirth – Even before pregancy

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

Photo courtesy of Impact Lab

Recently, I came across several news articles regarding risks that can lead to birth defects.  While it has long been known that smoking during pregnancy is not healthy for the mom or her developing baby, a new study is showing that a mom who smokes during pregnancy creates a huge risk of heart defects in her baby.  A Reuters article explains that the potential for harm caused by smoking during the first trimester of pregnancy, a time when many women may not even realize they are pregnant, is significant:

Specifically, women who smoked early in pregnancy were 30 percent more likely to give birth to babies with obstructions in the flow of blood from the heart to the lungs, and nearly 40 percent more likely to have babies with openings in the upper chambers of their hearts.

While smoking later in pregnancy can also cause birth defects, it is the critical period in early pregnancy when organ development occurs that causes the risk to be so significant at that time.

The Reuters article goes on to explain that the new study, in the journal Pediatrics, does not explain precisely why smoking so dramatically increases the risk of heart defects. However, given the risk, women not smoking before or during early pregnancy could decrease the number of children born with these defects.

A news release from the CDC adds that this study and other research suggest that if women quit smoking before or very early in pregnancy, they could avoid as many as 100 cases of the obstruction type of heart defect and 700 cases of abnormal openings in the upper heart chambers each year in the United States.

This is yet another great reason for woman to quit smoking as soon as possible and certainly before trying to get pregnant.

Secondhand Smoke Risks to Your Baby

We cannot let spouses, partners or other people in the mothers’ lives off the hook when it comes to smoking cessation.  A blog article on The Chart from CNN discusses a new study, also from the journal Pediatrics, which gives a convincing argument why woman must avoid secondhand smoke during and even before pregnancy.  The “[r]esearchers found exposure to secondhand smoke increased a non-smoking pregnant woman’s [chances] of having a stillborn by 23 percent, and increased the risk of delivering a baby with birth defects by 13 percent.”  The article went on to explain that the risk of having a stillborn or delivering a baby with birth defects is almost as large for a woman who does not smoke but is exposed to secondhand smoke as for a woman who smoked herself.  The risks of having a stillborn are increased 20-34% when the mother herself is the smoker and the risks of birth defects are increased by 10-34%.

Aren’t these compelling reasons to continue to work hard as a society on prevention and smoking cessation for the young?  It is too late to wait until child-bearing age when women may already be causing unnecessary harm to their unborn children before they know they are pregnant or by sharing their lives with individuals, who are not able to quit smoking fast enough to prevent harm before conception or during early pregnancy.

5 Questions to Ask Your Obstetrician Before You Go to the Hospital

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Having our baby

Once the special moment comes for you to go to the hospital to deliver your baby, there’s so much that goes on that it just may not be the best time to remember questions you wanted to ask your obstetrician. I’ve been there four times – so, as they say, been there done that! I’ve also had a number of cases that made me stop and think – “I wonder if some of the issues that my clients encountered could have been avoided if they had asked some questions before they wound-up in labor in hospital?” As you can well imagine, that is perhaps not the best time for a Q and A session.

This past weekend, I posted somewhat of a survey on our Facebook Page and Twitter asking our friends, fans and followers what questions they wished they had asked their obstetricians before they arrived at the hospital. I also have a number of moms, who work in our law office; so I put the question to them as well. The responses received provided some interesting food for thought, which I thought I might share with those about to have their baby.

Who will be delivering my baby?

This was one of the most frequent questions making the list. A number of women complained that they wish they had known that their primary obstetrician was not going to be the delivering doctor. Turns out that physician was being covered the day/night these moms delivered. While they may have met all the members of the practice (if it was a group practice), they were not particularly happy when their primary obstetrician wasn’t there for the delivery. The problem is compounded when their primary obstetrician was off and being covered by someone they had never met before. Suggestion: find out as best you can what the chances are that there will be coverage by someone you’ve never met before you arrive at the hospital. You may want to make an appointment to meet that potential covering physician if this is a concern.

When will I see my obstetrician at the hospital?

One of the cases we are handling somewhat arose from a situation that raises this as an issue. You get to the hospital, you’re admitted, you’re placed in bed, monitor attached – you’re good to go. But – where’s your doctor? Does he/she even know you’re there? When is your obstetrician coming to see you? Several of the women who responded said this was a real concern and wished they had discussed this with their doctor before they sat in bed waiting and waiting for their doctor to arrive. They also wondered – if there was no direct phone call before going to the hospital, just how could they be sure their doctor was notified that they had arrived. In one instance, one obstetrician claimed she didn’t know the patient was even in hospital for more than 4 hours! This woman had to undergo an emergency C-Section when the doctor allegedly figured out she was there. Suggestion: confirm with the hospital staff after you arrive that your doctor has been notified that you have arrived and ask when you might expect for your doctor to arrive and examine you.

Who will be doing the circumcision of my baby boy?

A number of parents indicated that while they had discussed whether their newborn son would have a circumcision, it hadn’t crossed their minds to ask – “Who will be doing the procedure?” If this is an important consideration, and you would like an answer not only as to “who” but “what experience” they have, think about covering this with your obstetrician beforehand. While some physicians are very good at performing this procedure, others are not so good. There have been a number of infant penile injuries that we have happened in the hands of – well let’s say – less than skilled physicians.

What will happen if for some reason I require general anesthesia but I’ve recently had a meal?

One of the common orders for a patient who will undergo general anesthesia is that they be NPO (nothing by mouth – liberal translation) for hours prior to surgery. While you may have planned to have an epidural or natural childbirth, some conditions involving you and/or your baby (non-reassuring fetal heart tracing, placental abruption, etc) can occur that may change the “plan” and require that you undergo a different form of anesthetic management. Suggestion: if such a situation should arise, you will be seen by an anesthesiologist first. Perhaps you will have a discussion about possible alternatives for anesthetic management, but I can virtually assure you, that will not be the best time to have a coherent, meaningful discussion. Some have suggested, based on their experience, that asking for and having a meeting with anesthesia personnel before going to the hospital for delivery is time well spent. You can usually have such appointments made through your obstetrician’s office and have a meaningful discussion of the various alternatives, risks and complications at that time.

How long will the effects of my epidural anesthetic last after delivery?

It’s been pointed out to me that while some hospitals have discontinued the practice of providing pain relief (analgesia) post-partum by use of PCA (patient controlled analgesia) pumps, some hospitals still continue that practice. Regardless of what the hospital’s practice may be, there is usually a very consistent practice/protocol for when a woman who has had an epidural should be discharged from a recovery room/area. This is when she is able to bend her knees, move her hips and flex her feet in both directions. Suggestion: ask your obstetrician what his/her practice is for providing you pain management/relief after you deliver your baby. Will you have an epidural running to provide that relief? When should you expect to get return of your ability to use and feel your legs? Don’t guess – you could suffer what is known as a prolonged block, where the anesthetic, for various reasons, is taking too long to wear-off and affecting your neurological functioning. If your obstetrician doesn’t know, then consider talking to specialist in such pain relief techniques – the anesthesiologist at the hospital where you will be delivering your baby. While you’re there, you may also want to discuss what the risks, benefits and complications of epidural, spinal and general anesthesia are so that you are aware of these issues in advance.

What suggestions do you have?

This is only a partial list of a number of suggestions made by our readers and staff. What suggestions do you have? If you have already been through childbirth, are these matters or issues you wish you had discussed before you went to the hospital? If you are about to have your first child, are these issues, concerns or questions you might share? We – and our readers – would really like to hear from you. There is no substitute for experience – or so they say.

Image by corbisimages.com


Join the conversation!

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn RSS