Posts Tagged ‘patient safety’

Simulation Labs: Helping Teach Nurses in Baltimore

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

From nursing.jhu.edu

Any one who has ever had a hospital stay or knows a loved one or friend who has been in the hospital knows that the nurses play a vital role in caring for patients. Nurses do many of the day-to-day activities of caring for patients in hospitals and clinics. They are also often the first ones at the bedside if a problem arises – so -isn’t it essential that nurses be well trained in all forms of emergency procedures? Even when doctors are present, nurses often play vital roles in assisting the doctors in providing life-saving care to patients.

Law and Medicine Intersect Once Again

I have recently been working on a case in which both doctors and nurses were present during an in-hospital delivery that ended with a significant injury to the child. During the delivery, a problem was encountered that has a low incidence rate during deliveries.  In considering this problem, I wondered just how frequently doctors and nurses are able to practice the skills they would need to successfully and calmly deliver a baby in a situation like this.  Faced with this “emergency” situation, how many of the doctors and nurses in the room had not experienced this problem before? For those who had –  just how much “experience” did they bring to the problem they were facing?

Simulations Rooms and Simulation Patients Provide Training Opportunities

Thankfully, technology is making it more feasible for training healthcare providers to practice handling a myriad of clinical situations during their education process that they might otherwise not experience frequently enough for their skills to develop in real world settings. In Baltimore, the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing (JHUSON) has simulation rooms in which nursing students are able to practice a variety of procedures and techniques using simulation patients in rooms that are designed to replicate the real patient areas of the hospital. There is also a whole family of simulators to help. This “sim fam” is not like the lifeless plastic dummies you might be imagining. They are a variety of different types of “…life-like practice manikins, including Sim Man, Vital Sim Man, Noelle with newborn, and Sim Baby [that] give nursing students the hands-on experience without the anxiety of working with actual human beings.”

Harvey the Cardiac Sim, SimNewB and Sim Man 3G  - All New Additions to the “Sim Fam”

From nursing.jhu.edu

Just this year, in March, JHUSON added Harvey to its collection of simulators.  While Harvey is new to JHUSON, he is not exactly new technology:

For almost 40 years Harvey, developed in cooperation between Laerdal Medical Corporation and Miami University Miller School of Medicine, has been a proven simulation system teaching bedside cardiac assessment skills that transfer to real patients, and remains the longest continuous university-based simulation project in medical education.

Harvey’s job is to be able to simulate “nearly any cardiac disease at the touch of a button: varying blood pressure, pulses, heart sounds, and murmurs. The software installed in the simulator allows users to track history, bedside findings, lab data, medical and surgical treatment.”  He joins a collection of other sim patients that enable healthcare providers to learn and practice critical life-saving measures such as CPR, defibrillation, intubation and yes – even the proper checking of vital signs. JHSON has adult, child and baby versions of these simulators. Some of them can even “talk” to the practicing nurses. (I wonder if they are programmed to be cooperative and informative or hostile and combative – hmmm.)

New Family Members Arrived this Past August

Even newer, in August, JHUSON added SimNewB and Sim Man 3G to the family. The SimNewB is:

…a 7 pound, 21 inch female baby, with realistic newborn traits. Students will be able to simulate a wide variety of patient conditions with her, including life-threatening ones. The department’s current Sim baby is the size of a 6 month old and is not as conducive to delivery room procedures.

She is also interactive, though she is not wireless like the Sim Man 3G. Some of the new Sim Man’s traits include “…breath sounds both anteriorly and posteriorly, … pupil reactions, [and] skin temperature changes.”

What about Obstetrics Cases?

So, what about the case I was mentioning that involved obstetrical care? Well, JHUSON also has a pregnant simulator, which is can be used to practice a whole host of obstetrically related procedures. These include “Leopold maneuvers, normal vaginal and instrumented delivery, breech delivery, C-section, and postpartum hemorrhaging, among other functions.” The JHUSON sim family also has the new Sim newborn – SimNewB.

The “Jury” Is Still “Out”

Can there be any doubt that additional hands-on practice opportunities with simulators is a good idea for situations that may not come up very often in everyday practice? Won’t it help healthcare practitioners gain skills and keep those skills up-to-date? Any opinion I might have on these issues is not based on evidence….yet. Luckily, JHSON is “…among 10 nursing schools nationwide collaborating on a landmark study to find out just how well patient simulators—high-tech manikins that respond to a nurse’s care—help prepare the nurses of tomorrow.”  I – for one – will certainly be interested in the outcome of that study.

What about you? Do you think that it makes sense for nurses in training to make use of simulation rooms and simulated patients? Would it be better for them to spend more time in real world situations doing real patient care under the supervision of experienced practitioners? What about techniques that might not come up very often?

If any of the readers of this post have used these sim patients in your training and can give us firsthand information as to how, if at all, it carried-over to make you more “experienced and skilled” when facing similar clinical situations with real patients, your comments would be most welcomed as well.

Can Copper Surfaces and Duct Tape Reduce Hospital Infections and Deaths?

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

Image from medgadget.com

How many times have you heard about someone entering the hospital healthy, or relatively so, and developing a dangerous infection while hospitalized? What about the number of times that you may have visited your own doctor’s office or your child’s pediatrician’s office and wondered whether the cold you got a few days later was coincidence or the result of having been in the waiting and exam rooms following other sick patients? Have you ever considered what cleaning procedures are done in hospital rooms when one patient is discharged before another takes their place?

In the past, Brian Nash and the other legal bloggers here at Eye Opener have written posts and made mention of the importance of hospital cleanliness and sterility, see the related posts below. We have been involved in cases involving the devastating results of infections. However, everyone knows that there are going to be germs in hospitals. Even the best hospitals have to work to keep the patients, rooms and visitors clean and safe.

Well, there is news that may make keeping hospitals and other health care environments less germy in the future. Two recent articles have focused on seemingly simple solutions, copper and duct tape, that may have major impacts on infection control.

Copper Surfaces Dramatically Reduce Infections by Killing Bacteria

A Reuters’ article reports that a recent study “presented at the World Health Organization’s 1st International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control (ICPIC) in Geneva, Switzerland” shows that “replacing the most heavily contaminated touch surfaces in ICUs with antimicrobial copper will control bacteria growth and cut down on infection rates.” According to the Reuters’ article:

[a]ntimicrobial copper surfaces in intensive care units (ICU) kill 97 percent of bacteria that can cause hospital-acquired infections, according to preliminary results of a multisite clinical trial in the United States. The results also showed a 40 percent reduction in the risk of acquiring an infection.

This news could have a profound impact on health-care costs, disease spread, and most importantly lives lost. If hospitals are able to replace some of their current surfaces with copper surfaces, at least in the parts of the hospital that are most frequently the source of infections, there could be a dramatic improvement in hospital-acquired infections.

Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States behind heart disease, strokes and cancer.

According to estimates provided by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in every 20 hospitalized U.S. patients acquires an HAI, resulting in 100,000 lives lost each year.

From Reuters

Perhaps even more infections could be prevented if these changes could be made outside of just ICUs. For instance, perhaps copper surfaces could replace highly touched surfaces on sink handles, the doors to hospital rooms, hospital bed rails, or in out-patient surgery centers and long-term care facilities that are not housed within hospitals.

Duct Tape Warnings Keep Others Far Enough Away from Infected Patients

Image from ducttapesales.com

An article from Medicalnewstoday reports that some hospitals are using plain duct tape – just colored red – to achieve a reduction in infection rates from highly infectious patients without having to deal with the hassle and expense of all visitors or hospital personnel who enter the room having to rescrub and use new gowns every time they enter the room of an infected patient. The study looked at highly infectious diseases like C. diff that require isolation of patients and very careful hand washing to avoid spreading the infection. So how does duct tape help?

The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) commissioned a study to corner off a three foot perimeter around the bed of patients in isolation. Medical personnel could enter the room unprotected if they stayed outside the perimeter. Direct patient contact or presence inside the perimeter meant a redo of the cleansing process. The concept, called “Red Box” employs red duct tape, a color used as it provides a strong visual reminder to those who enter the room to be aware.

The study found that 33% of all who entered the rooms could do so without the addition of gowns and gloves, saving the environment, hospital and patient costs, and time without compromising the patient or the medical personnel.

From Medicalnewstoday

How Else Can We Reduce Infections?

What ideas do you have for the use of copper surfaces? Do you think that copper surfaces or duct tape could make a dramatic difference in the safety of hospital admission? What about the cost? Do you think that hospitals would pay the upfront costs of replacing surfaces with copper to be able to dramatically cut infection rates? What about other low cost solutions like duct-tape around the perimeter of the bed? Can you think of other low-cost solutions that could minimize infections and maximize safety?

Related Posts:

New federal study finds ‘lax infection control’ at same-day surgery centers

FDA warning to healthcare professionals: use sterile prep pads!

Medical Second Opinions: An Under-utilized Option for Patients

Monday, May 2nd, 2011

Today’s medical world is vast with various technologies, treatments and options.  So, if a patient is diagnosed with a medical condition, and doctor A recommends treatment A, what keeps the patient from seeking a second opinion? This is an interesting phenomenon.  After performing intake summaries and client interviews for quite a while now, it still amazes me how many people have bad outcomes from surgery simply because they never requested a second opinion. Second opinions are not simply reserved for surgery, though; cancer treatment options, medical therapies for chronic conditions like rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease, chiropractic care of chronic back or neck pain are some other conditions that, in my mind, scream for a second opinion!

Having practiced medicine for 13 years, working with physicians from all specialties, I can honestly say that doctors are not gods. They are human beings, no different than you or me, and human beings are prone to prejudice and errors. Granted, physicians go through a lot of education and training to perform their daily duties, but location of training, timing of training and educational mentors play a huge role in shaping the decision-making process of these humans.

Inherent limitations that can affect physician recommendations

For example, the latest technology for prostatectomy has been the DaVinci procedure, using minimally invasive robotic technology to surgically remove the prostate.  Operation of the robotics involves manipulation of “joysticks”, much like video-gaming. No offense, but if your particular urologist is 60 years of age or older, what are the chances that this particular surgeon is as adept with these skills or technology as a 30-year-old urologist?  Special training is required for use of these robotics, and not all hospitals even have the technology available. Therefore, one’s choices are automatically limited, and a minimally-invasive robotics-assisted procedure may not even be an option! A second opinion by another urologist at a different facility might be able to provide that option. A similar situation would be the use of gamma knife surgery for removal of brain tumors; it is not always an option available based on the facility or the neurosurgeon providing the consultation.

Can recommendations be limited by specialty?

Another example has to do with medical specialty affiliation. If one is trained as a surgeon, he/she focuses on the technical removal or repair of abnormal body parts. If one is trained in radiation-oncology, the focus would be the various radiation technologies available for treatment of disease. If one is a medical oncologist, chemotherapy protocols for the particular neoplastic condition would be the focus.  So who ties all of this together?  First of all, is the tumor even operable? Is the patient a good candidate for surgery? Should one try radiation first to shrink the tumor, then follow it with an operation? Is chemotherapy the way to go, but which regimen of drugs is really appropriate? These are very technical and complex questions. Should one leave the ultimate recommendation up to one specialty physician?

Suggested approach to the problem

For me, it would be a little more comforting to get the same overall recommendation from two independent physicians. What if the opinions differ?  A third opinion? – or, simply focus on the discrepancies with direct questioning of the two physicians and find out the rationale for the recommendation being made. You do not know how many times I have heard, “I trusted my doctor.” I ask you, if your car was making a rattling noise but seemed to be running okay and a mechanic told you a new transmission was necessary at the cost of $1800, would you get a second opinion?

Don’t let fear or reprisal get in your way

One of the main reasons for fear in seeking second opinions is anticipated disapproval and potential retaliation by the first physician or fear of a change in the patient-physician relationship.  I pose to you the following:  if a physician has done his/her research regarding the condition and is confident is his/her recommendation, then he/she should not fear the opinion of a peer. If that opinion differs, it should be reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness because it might just be a viable option not previously considered. If the physician is “offed” by the patient’s search for a second opinion, that physician thinks way too highly of himself/herself; keep in mind that this is about the patient who has a condition that requires treatment, not the physician’s integrity or ego. It is my firm opinion that physicians should be proud of those patients who advocate so strongly for themselves and seek to be educated about their condition.  Education leads to a better understanding of the disease process, better expectation of the “road ahead,” and better patient compliance with medical therapies. Retaliation is prohibited by the medical code of ethics; if there is a retaliatory action, the state’s Medical Board should be notified and prompted to investigate.

Beware of the on-line second opinion approach!!!

Recently, multiple facilities have offered a “second opinion service” via the internet. A patient submits his/her medical condition along with various lab studies and other diagnostic imaging (CT scans, x-rays, MRI scans, etc.) for review over the internet; an opinion is provided based on these facts!  What this really doesn’t take into consideration is the patient!  Patients are people – human beings with emotions, physical limitations, families (or not), previous histories and other underlying health conditions. One of the things I was taught in PA school was to treat the patient and not the numbers!  Not all patients are surgical candidates.  Not all patients can emotionally or physically tolerate some of the chemotherapy protocols. Someone might look good on paper with great blood parameters, vital signs, etc., but in person, one’s assessment changes dramatically.  These virtual second opinions may have their place in certain situations, but I generally have to question the validity of such an assessment.

A “real-life” story

I leave you with a quick summary of a case:  Mr. B was a 40-something, physically fit male professional, who loved to work out and exercise. He developed some mechanical back pain for which he sought treatment. An MRI scan revealed an incidental finding of small spinal cord glioma in the low back. Clinically, there was no evidence to support that this incidental finding was in any way related to Mr. B’s pain. He sought the advice of a neurosurgeon, who immediately wanted to operate. Well, if research had been done, these particular tumors are 99% benign, very slow-growing and can often be monitored for 10 to 20 years before surgery might even be necessary.

Mr. B followed the advice of the surgeon and underwent a resection of this small tumor. The surgery required resection of the S1 nerve root, which affects sensation in the genital region and anus; Mr B was now impotent and had problems with bowel movements in addition to a chronic burning sensation in his genital region. A second opinion might well have saved Mr. B a lot of pain, permanent erectile dysfunction and money required to undergo alternative methods for conception. He’ll never know now.

Have you or someone you know gotten second opinions before making a decision about an important medical procedure? What’s your approach? Have you ever received different opinions about how to treat a condition? How did you resolve this situation? Any tips for others?

Image: Wellsphere.com

Update: After posting Theresa Neumann’s piece this morning, I came across a somewhat related post on KevinMD.com entitled Marcus Welby and the relentless growth of specialization. The author, Jan Henderson, PhD, raises some very interesting thoughts about what I would call the “over-specialization” of medicine. She provides the following quote of Dr. Welby from very first episode of this TV show of years gone by, which – to me – supports one of the concerns raised by Theresa in her blawg:

… I hope some of you will go into general practice. For if you don’t, where will a patient turn who doesn’t know that he has an orthopedic problem? Or a neurological problem? Or a psychiatric problem? Or a nutritional problem? But who only knows that, in lay terms, he feels lousy.

Just some food for thought you might enjoy.

Brian Nash (editor of “Eye Opener”)

Hungover Surgeons: Watch Out! There Is Nothing Between You and Their Scalpel!

Friday, April 29th, 2011

If you need surgery, you might want to ask your physician not to drink the night before the surgery. According to a recent study, surgeons are a lot more error-prone when operating after a night of drinking.  Sixteen medical student (residents) and eight surgeons participated in the study. They were each asked to perform simulated laparoscopic surgeries without any drinking the night before. Then, they were all invited out to dinner and were asked to drink alcohol as they pleased until they felt intoxicated.  The next day, each participant was asked to perform the same simulated surgeries, and the results were quite surprising.

Each medical student had made an average of 19 errors during surgery.  Their sober counterparts made an average of eight errors. On a side note, the fact that so many errors were made even without any drinking is not making me feel warm and fuzzy at all.  It can take one error, not eight or 19, to seriously injure a patient.

The licensed surgeons did not do much better. The ones who drank had about a 50 % spike in the error rate. Wow!  So, if you see your surgeon ordering yet another Brain Hemorrhage ( 1 part peach schnapps, splash of Irish cream, and a dash of Grenadine) the day before your surgery, you might want to buy him a Virgin Bloody Mary.

Just how prevalent is alcohol abuse among surgeons?

What is the practical importance of this information?  If alcohol impairs surgical performance and alcohol abuse is common among physicians, how safe are we as patients? A number of studies seem to support the conclusion that physicians are more likely to abuse alcohol than other professionals. For example, a study published in the Journal of Addiction, examined trends of alcoholism among male doctors in Scotland. Apparently, as many as 50% of the doctors found to have health problems liable to affect their professional competence were also found to have a drinking problem. According to the same study, the higher rate of liver cirrhosis among doctors suggests that doctors are at a higher risk for alcoholism.  Maybe it has something to do with the wide availability of quality scotch.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed the rate of substance abuse among U.S. physicians. Apparently, they are not that different from their Scottish counterparts.  According to this study, U.S. physicians are more likely to consume alcohol than other professionals. I guess one good piece of news for us patients is that, although physicians were as likely to have used illicit drugs in the past, illicit drug consumption was found to be less among practicing physicians. That conclusion, however, may depend on your definition of illicit drug use. According to the same study, physicians are more likely to self-medicate with various drugs that can be just as addictive and impairing as some of the illicit drugs. By the way, it appears that physicians prefer opiates and benzodiazepine tranquilizers to “self-medicate.”

With this in mind, consider the number of surgeries that a surgeon performs a week. While the number may differ depending on the specialty, location, and other factors, many perform multiple surgeries. I have personally met orthopedic surgeons, for example, who perform as many as 5-6 surgeries a day.  If you accept the proposition that surgeons like their booze and that the average surgeon operates multiple times a week, how frequently does a surgeon end operate after a night of intoxicating frivolity?

Should hospitals regulate for patient safety?

This seems to be the ultimate inquiry. Additional research may be necessary to correlate these two variables. After all, no one wants to be operated by a surgeon whose lifestyle makes him 50% more likely to make a mistake. Nevertheless, even absent such information, hospitals and surgeons should take to heart the results of the study.  It might even be prudent for hospitals to enact regulations to prohibit surgeons from drinking the night before scheduled surgeries.

I am unaware of a single hospital that has enacted such a regulation.   Are you aware of hospital regulations designed to prohibit surgeons from drinking the night before scheduled surgeries?  Do you know of any proposed legislation in this regard?  More importantly, if you advocate for such regulations, tell our readers how to get involved. Patients Against Drunk Surgeons (PADS) may be a cause worth fighting for.

 

Image from thegospelcoalition

Nurses Switching Shifts: Does a Lack of Sleep Put Patients at Risk?

Friday, April 22nd, 2011

Image from scrubsmag.com

Many of us take it as a given that if we end up in a hospital, we will be taken care of by an around-the-clock group of health care professionals. These doctors, nurses and other staff will be awake and alert to care for us and prevent any potential problems during our stay. However, how many of you have thought about how this impacts these health care professionals on their days off? I know that I had not thought too much about this issue. I had taken for granted that if I or a loved one were hospitalized that the professionals involved in their care would be at least well rested enough to avoid major medical errors.

I have read lots of different reports about all of the rule changes for doctors in training regarding how many hours they can work in a week or at one time. I had never before read a report regarding the impact of work schedules on nurses. While I knew that most nurses worked 12-hour shifts, I have to admit that I had not thought about how this impacted their own lives or patient care. That changed when I read a recent article in medicalnewstoday.com. This article discusses a study published in Public Library of Science One that was conducted “…to examine the strategies that night nurses use to adjust between day and night sleep cycles.”

What seems obvious in retrospect, but that I had never really considered before, is that nurses who work the night shift (typically 7 pm until 7 am – or “7p to 7a” as they like to call it), normally do not stay up all night in their “non-work” lives. On their days off, they often want to live a more typical life with daytime awake hours. The ramification of this is that they need to switch their sleep schedule back and forth several times throughout the week. Can you image having to do that yourself and still perform your job properly?

The medicalnewstoday.com article explains that “[a]s many as 25 percent of hospital nurses go without sleep for at least 24 hours in order to adjust to working on the night shift, which is the least effective strategy for adapting their internal, circadian clocks to a night-time schedule.”

The “First Shift” Effect

So, the first issue in this revelation is that as many as a quarter of hospital nurses are going without sleep for at least 24 hours when adjusting to working the night shift. I shudder to think of how many nurses around the country are therefore working at least their first night shift every week while on hours 12-24 of not having slept.

While others may function better than I do without sleep, I don’t think that I would ever feel comfortable being cared for by a nurse who had not slept in the prior 12 hours before starting their shift. It seems to me that this opens up the possibility for many medical errors and patient injuries.

The Circadian Clock Effect

The second issue I had was that this is also “the least effective strategy for adapting their internal, circadian clocks” – which I take to mean that if a nurse who has not slept for that first shift is not bad enough – it also does not work very well to help them be adjusted and well rested for the rest of the week.

If the concerns about the health of the public being cared for by tired nurses is not bad enough, this can also be quite damaging to the health of the nurses themselves. These selfless individuals who are caring for others are – frankly – at risk.

A number of previous studies have found that repeated incidence of circadian misalignment the condition that occurs when individuals’ sleep/wake patterns are out of sync with their biological clocks is not healthy. Jet lag is the most familiar example of this condition. Circadian misalignment has been associated with increased risk of developing cardiovascular, metabolic and gastrointestinal disorders, some types of cancer and several mental disorders.

So, these nurses are risking their own health in addition to potentially the health of their patients.

Just how important is sleep?

Just how much does sleep matter? Well, another article from medicalnewstoday.com recently looked at sleep in a very different context. It examined a study from the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, which showed that “…automobile crash rates among teen drivers…” were dramatically higher in otherwise similar school districts where teens started school earlier in the morning (a difference of about 1 hours and twenty minutes). While there is no proof yet that this connection is causal, there certainly seems to be a strong connection even after adjusting for other possible factors. The article also mentions that:

Another study in the April issue of the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine suggests that delaying school start times by one hour could enhance students’ cognitive performance by improving their attention level and increasing their rate of performance, as well as reducing their mistakes and impulsivity. The Israeli study of 14-year-old, eighth-grade students found that the teens slept about 55 minutes longer each night and performed better on tests that require attention when their school start time was delayed by one hour.

While teens and teenage behavior can be different from that of adults (thank goodness), I still think that these studies highlight some of the key issues of sleep deprivation. Adults seem likely to also make more mistakes, lack attention and act more impulsively when functioning on less sleep.

However, a review of a study from Nursing Economics entitled “Shift Work in Nursing: Is it Really a Risk Factor for Nurses’ Health and Patients’ Safety” suggests that other factors put nurses’ health at greater risk and that shift work does not impact the number of medical errors. The study was conducted in Israel in 2003. It is important to note that this study looked at nurses working alternating 8-hour shifts and did not directly look at the issue of nurses not sleeping in order to switch between 12-hour shifts.  The investigators in the study were surprised by some of their findings:

Shift work and organizational outcomes. In the present study, we investigated the impact of sleep disturbances on shift nurses and on two organizational outcomes: errors and incidents and absenteeism from work. Based on our literature review (Morshead, 2002; Muecke, 2005; Westfall-Lake, 1997), we expected that “non-adaptive shift nurses” would report on more involvement in errors and adverse incidents as compared to “adaptive shift nurses.” We also assumed that non-adaptive nurses, who by definition have more sleep-related complaints, would have higher absenteeism rates due to illness compared to their adaptive colleagues. Neither of our hypotheses was supported by the results of this study.

Instead the study found that:

It appears that gender, age, and weight are more significant factors than shift work in determining the well-being of nurses. Moreover, nurses who were identified as being non-adaptive to shift work based on their complaints about sleep were found to work as effectively and safely as their adaptive colleagues in terms of absenteeism from work and involvement in professional errors and accidents.

What do you think? Would you want a nurse who has been up for 24 hours to be caring for you or your loved one? Should it be the nurse’s decision whether they are alert enough for work? Should rules be created for nurses just as they were for physicians in training? What about nurses who enjoy the flexibility and freedom allowed by this sort of schedule? Have you worked as a nurse? What are your experiences and feedback on whether this is a problem?

Related Post – you may want to read:

A Surgeon’s Sleep Deprivation and Elective Surgery – Not a good (or safe) combination.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a Perspective on December 30, 2010, that screams common sense and should be embraced as a starting point to implement some new patient-safety standards of practice. Place yourself in the position of a patient getting ready to undergo an elective (i.e. non-emergency) surgical procedure. You’re wheeled into the operating room for your surgery and are greeted by your surgeon in the process. Read more…


 

Medical Technology and Patient Safety – Part II – EMR’s (electronic medical records)

Saturday, April 9th, 2011

Let’s begin the discussion about whether or not medical technology is truly advancing the efficient and safe delivery of patient care with the topic of electronic medical records (EMR’s). Much has already been written on this subject; however, a recap of some of the arguments being made – pro and con – for EMR’s will set the stage for what I believe is the major problem with this technological advance.

If you have ever had to review old-fashioned hand-written records relating to a patient’s care, which I’ve been doing now for almost four decades, you were thrilled – at least initially - when you heard about the advent of this new, eye-strain-saving project. Not only was I counting on cutting down the number of times I would have to increase the strength of my prescription eyeglasses, I figured I might now be able to actually read what the healthcare provider learned by history, found on examination, thought was the more likely diagnoses causing the patient’s presenting complaint and what the doctor’s plans were to address the medical problem confronting that healthcare provider. What a bonus! No more guessing! Too good to be true?

Now with EMR’s, when you request medical records from a healthcare provider, you could expect to receive – presumably with the push of a “print” button, not papyrus-like records filled with hieroglyphics, but a formatted, easily readable comprehensive rendition of what happened in the course of patient care. Well, not so fast, I quickly learned.

With the arrival of EMR’s, I became mired in a world of radio buttons, drop down menus, cryptic narratives that didn’t really match the fill-in-the-blanks charting, and a world of metadata to find out the story-behind-the-story (like who accessed the EMR, what they were looking at and when they saw it).

Now let’s be real – I sincerely doubt that the medical profession and the computer and software vendors had lawyers in mind when they created and rolled-out this new marvel. As the medical profession is so quick to point out to us lawyers, lawyers are not the ones in the trenches trying to make people better and save lives. We’re the bottom feeders (oh yeah – that’s their description so many times), who do nothing but second guess for our personal monetary gain the medical community’s valiant efforts. That discussion is for another day!

Turns out, however, that it is not only my kind screaming about how this modern medical technology has flaw upon flaw associated with it; the medical profession has serious, second thoughts about just how wonderful EMR’s are.

The Concepts Behind EMR’s

Just do a search in your favorite search engine on the topic of EMR’s – add the word “controversy” or get really ingenious and pose the question: “What are the pro’s and con’s of EMR’s?” While you’re combing through page after page of search results, take note of who is writing about why EMR’s are not the next best thing to sliced bread. I’ll save you the task; it’s the medical profession. That’s right, the very people who hailed the advent of EMR’s and extolled the many intended virtues of this technology.

The Pro’s of EMR’s:

Here are some of intended benefits of EMR’s:

  • improve the quality of patient healthcare through instant, universal access to patient data (at the click of a mouse or push of a button)
  • avoid, if not eradicate, the “unreadability” (interpretation: I can’t read your handwriting; what are you telling me?) of hand-written chart entries.
  • improve patient safety through better detection of adverse events. The intended goal is premised on EMR’s having a central database of patient information, decision-making, outcomes (including adverse events) and other key epidemiological data available and accessible for analysis.
  • enhanced quality of care through immediate access of all pertinent patient information (e.g. testing, radiological studies, medications, vital signs, laboratory studies, etc.) so that caregivers can make better, faster and more informed decisions about continuing plans of care.
  • making healthcare more cost efficient by reducing unnecessary redundancy of testing (due to inability to locate prior paper-based information), digital access to key points of patient data rather than the waste incurred through manual search of past records from various healthcare provider sources, copying, faxing, etc.
  • keeping records safe: with proper digital storage measures, there can be avoidance of destruction, misplacement and the like.
  • overcoming inaccurate past medical history (PMH) information since care providers would have access to a patient’s “true and accurate” medical history by accessing stored medical data. Healthcare providers would no longer be relying on ofttimes faulty patient memory of PMH.
  • improved coordination and information exchange between healthcare providers. Studies have shown that the communication and transfer of information between primary care physicians and hospital-based physicians has been less than optimal.
  • improved, accessible and faster surveillance capabilities for wide scale events such as epidemics, catastrophic natural disasters (e.g. Katrina) and even bioterrorism.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are a host of other EMR pro’s. Yet even though the concept of EMR’s has apparently been the topic of discussion for about forty years and there are so many potential benefits inherent in their use, one must wonder – why did it take so long to implement EMR’s and why are they not being fervently embraced throughout the medical profession?

Some Con’s

As with many great modern marvels, once the allure of the new toy wears-off and implementation begins, some of the flaws begin to surface. ERM’s clearly have their share of warts.

  • privacy concerns – do EMR’s have the ability to turn the sacrosanct confidential communications between physician and patient on their ear? Some scream a resounding “yes.” Some have expressed deep-seated concerns that such accessible data will be used against a patient when they apply for jobs, health insurance, or – I’ve seen said – even a college scholarship. The potential inclusion of genetic data in EMR’s and the accessibility by researchers or others who don’t fit the need-to-know category also has privacy advocates screaming “foul.”
  • loss of the benefit of provider narratives (which were the norm in hand-written charts) so as to better appreciate the subtleties and thought processes of medical care. It is often said that medicine is an art, not a science. The ability to appreciate the art of medicine, some fear, has been lost when all that you can glean is pre-formatted information from drop-down menus and radio buttons. There’s no longer an ability to appreciate the true thinking process of the caregiver. Some refer to these problems as blind and meaningless use of short-cuts, templates and pre-fills, which don’t allow subsequent caregivers relying on EMR charts to get a true and accurate picture of a prior caregiver’s true thoughts. Apparently, quicker and easier input does not always translate into better or more accurate information.

Think I’m making this one up? Here’s what one internist at Harvard Medical School had to say about EMR’s:

Harvard Medical School internist and entrepreneur Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle says that many EMRs are designed to improve coding and maximize reimbursements, often at the expense of clinician functionality. “When you’re trying to read the notes of your colleague [in an EMR], it’s almost impossible to figure out what happened to the patient,” Fernandopulle tells the Journal. “You have to read through two pages of all this junk that’s put in to increase billing.”

  • Notwithstanding the claims of EMR advocates, many in healthcare and related fields firmly believe that EMR’s are not safe and secure. They point out that despite encryption and restricted access through log-in’s via usernames and passwords, there are numerous and disturbing instances of hackers gaining access to private patient information.

• November 26, 2007, Canada. Hackers accessed medical information on HIV and hepatitis from a Canadian health agency computer.
• September 22, 2008, UK. The National Health Service (NHS) reported the loss of 4 CDs in the mail containing information on 17,990 employees.
• September 30, 2008, US. The company Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana confirmed breach of personal data, including Social Security numbers, phone numbers and addresses of about 1,700 brokers. The data was accidentally attached to a general email.

(source: The HWN Team @ HealthWorldNet.com)

  • computer-driven healthcare is potentially hazardous to one’s health. Rather than paraphrase, let me share one comment I found on a blog extolling the virtues of EMR’s:

Try telling that to a computer: I am on medication that I take every three days. So, a normal 30 day supply last[s] me 90 days. However, the computer at my pharmacy automatically renews the prescription and I get a phone call every month asking me to come pick it up. I now have a year’s worth of pills on hand and they’ll expire before I can take them (which means I should not take them as they may not be effective). So, I called on Friday to tell them that I wanted to opt out of the system. The nice person informed me that I had been removed from the system. 9:01 AM Today (Monday) I got a call, telling me that my prescription is ready to be picked up. This is what happens when people cede thinking and into the ‘computer said it so it must be true’ mindset that we’ve all experienced from time to time to maddening effect.

  • way too much information, a lot of which is purely redundant and distracting. From my perspective as a lawyer, this is a major problem with EMR’s. A click of a radio button or a selection from a drop-down menu often generates duplicate entry data in a host of other fields across the system. As you try working your way through the jungle of screens or paper generated by EMR’s, you say to yourself, “Didn’t I just read that same thing somewhere else?” Now put yourself in the shoes of a healthcare provider. You have a number of patients to see, orders to give, reports on patients to share, calls from your pager to answer – and all you want to know when checking a patient’s EMR is some key information so you can do what needs to be done and move on. What do you find? More information than your ever wanted or needed and at times conflicting information. Frustration mounts and you yearn for the days of color-coded, hand-written charts.
  • How fast can you type? Simple but real issue for apparently many in the medical profession. EMR’s are meant to save time – perhaps not!
  • How fast do the records load? Some have become frustrated when using internet portals for records with very slow loading time of EMR’s when using over-utilized internet connections during peak usage hours.
  • those developing the EMR software failed to consult with practitioners before rolling out their product leading to templates, care strategies and selection choices that have no practical use for actual caregivers.

Just as is the case with the pro’s, there are many more con’s being voiced throughout the internet by medical care providers. That being said, I am of the firm belief that one of the biggest flaws is the manner in which EMR’s were and continue to be implemented – rolled out for use – in our medical institutions and physician offices. This can range from lack of training, lack of quality control, lack of system-wide coordination – you name it. In the rush to purchase, upload and put in use EMR’s, too little thought seems to have been given too many times to such projects before implementation. After the implementation, many problems started to rear their ugly heads.

Here are but a few examples of poor implementation voiced by a nurse, Kaye, in a comment she posted to the first installment of this series. Make sure to take particular note of Kaye’s fourth point!

1. Facilities are not getting input from the potential users before purchasing. Cost and JC compliance is more important than usability. “Here is your new system. Make it work.”
2. Seasoned nurses and ancillary staff are not given the considerations derserving of the huge technological changes. It’s a whole other language. A COW (Computer On Wheels) stands in the field.
3. A culture clash has developed between nursing and the IT department who cannot appreciate the urgency of correcting problems.
4. At my facility, there are 3 different systems. They don’t ‘talk’ to each other. Whose idea was that?

I could go on; but you get the point.

In my next installment, I will share with you with more real-life examples of just how misleading, inaccurate and unsafe EMR’s can be. Just to give you a tease – how about the case of a woman who was paralyzed following an epidural for labor and post-childbirth pain relief. Hours after she was diagnosed by a neurologist as having suffered injury to her spinal cord leaving her with significant, devastating motor deficits and sensory loss, she was noted by a nurse in the EMR to be “ambulating [i.e. walking] x 2″? I wonder if that would have happened if the nurse had to hand-write that entry and not just click on a drop down menu choice. There will be plenty more examples of such just how effective and safe EMR’s have turned out to be. Stay tuned and tune in to Part III coming next week.

Related Posts: Medical Technology and Patient Safety: EMR’s, COW’s, iPads, etc. – are they really doing the job? Part I.

 

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

Monday, April 4th, 2011

Be your own advocate - ask questions!

Thousands of women will have an epidural today to help them through their labor, and many of them will have a running epidural after they have their baby delivered. This is especially true in the time period for those who have had a C-Section.

There’s no doubt that epidurals have been a wonderful tool for doctors to provide patients with relief from the pains of labor and the pain and discomfort following delivery – mainly after a C-Section.

Because they have become so commonplace in hospitals throughout this country – and the world – they seem to have been taken for granted as being “safe” – not just effective. For the most part – they are safe, but they clearly have significant risks associated with them.

Some reports claim that the overall complication rate for epidurals is 23%. These complications range from very minor (e.g. some nausea, vomiting, itching, headaches) to the most major of complications – death of the mother and/or her baby. In between these two extremes lie some very devastating injuries to both a mother and her baby. Just some of those reported are damage to the mother’s spinal cord leading to motor (ability to move legs) and/or sensory (ability to feel sensations) injuries, bowel and bladder dysfunction, foot drop and a host of other potential – thankfully rare – complications.

There is a popular book that many expectant mothers have considered their bible over the years – What to Expect When You’re Expecting, which is now in it’s fourth edition, according to Amazon.com. While no doubt this has been a valuable resource for many moms-to-be, one medical author takes some exception to the section on epidurals:

Epidural anesthesia has become increasingly popular for childbirth. The popular book, What to Expect when You’re Expecting, for example, portrays epidurals as perfectly safe. The risks, however, may be greatly underplayed.

It’s been many decades (four in one instance) since I personally went through the “birthing” process as a parent-in-waiting. I must admit, I have not purchased or read the latest edition of this book so I cannot vouch that this portrayal of epidurals being “perfectly safe” is still the message of this popular book. Obviously it was at the time of the quote by this Canadian medical writer.)

What expectations do YOU have for your special day?

I suspect that many of you are like I was in envisioning what your experience will be like when the day arrives. You have your bags packed, back-up coverage in place if needed, car gassed. The moment arrives and off to the hospital you go. You register, get in your room, the fetal monitor is applied, and you pass the time remembering (or trying to remember) all those things you learned in your birthing classes. Your epidural is placed and all goes smoothly. Finally, the time comes for you to deliver your new bundle of joy. You make it through some angst of birth, see your new addition through tears of joy and relief and get ready for the onslaught of family and friends, who want to see the new arrival to your family. After you and your baby are cleared for discharge, off you go to your home, ready to begin your “new life” of nurturing, educating, parenting – aglow with images of pride, joy and a world of opportunities ahead. Hopefully, that’s exactly how we all hope it works out for you and your family.

To increase your odds that this scenario plays out, I would strongly suggest that you not take for granted the part about your epidural going smoothly. While there are probably many other questions you may think to ask – or should think to ask – here are three suggestions I have for you based on my seeing (as a lawyer) what can happen when the epidural doesn’t go smoothly.

How an epidural is performed

Here is one example available on the internet (YouTube) to show you just how an epidural is done. Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to understand the speaker (at least for me), but having looked at several videos, I think it gives you a pretty good idea of how this procedure is performed by the anesthesiologist.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WRccCADReY&feature=related

“Have you reviewed my medical history, Doctor? Is there anything else I can tell you?”

Some of the known risks of having epidural anesthesia are connected to your medical history. Sure, you’re assuming that the medical history you gave to your OB during the prenatal visits and to the intake nurse when you arrived at the hospital has found it’s way to your medical record. You’re also assuming that your medical history has been carefully reviewed by the anesthesiologist whose about to put the epidural in your back. Is it there? Has it been carefully reviewed? Ask! There are conditions (e.g. spina bifida, scoliosis, certain heart valve problems, sickle cell anemia, etc.) that can increase your risk of a complication from an epidural.  Are you taking or have you recently taken any type of anti-coagulant such as heparin or coumadin? Make sure your anesthesiologist is aware if this is the case since these drugs can increase the risk of a bleeding complication. You don’t want to have a collection of blood around your spinal cord – believe me!

“When should I expect to move my legs or bend my knees? How long will I feel numb?”

In most instances, epidural are given to provide analgesia – pain relief (sensory block) during labor and at times for post-delivery (C-Section) pain relief. They are not intended to block your motor function – that is, your ability to move your legs, flex your ankles, wiggle your toes, flex your hips or bend your knees. During a C-Section the drugs being used for delivery are many times different drugs from the ones you are getting via your epidural infusion. You will have a different block so that surgery can be performed safely. You will likely have both a sensory and a motor block! You need to understand the difference.

These anesthesia drugs (the ones given during your surgery) will usually wear-off (varies depending on the drugs and from patient to patient) in a period of 1 to 4 hours. You will typically be in a post anesthesia care unit (PACU) during your recovery phase from anesthesia.

Key: you should not be discharged from the PACU if you are unable to at least bend your knees. There is a scoring system (Bromage) that the nurses and personnel in the PACU will typically use after examining your ability to move your legs, bend your knees, wiggle your toes, flex your hips, etc. to determine if you can safely be discharged from the PACU or if you need to be seen by a specialist in anesthesia to determine if you have a potentially significant complication.

“What exactly should I expect to feel like if I have an epidural running after I deliver my baby?”

I simply cannot stress enough how important it is for you to understand exactly how you should be feeling after you have been discharged from the PACU to your room. Don’t ask your family or friends; they don’t know – unless they are anesthesiologists. There are so many free, uneducated opinions out there that are simply wrong!

One further piece of advice: do not ask the nurse what you should expect to feel like. There is absolutely no doubt that there are many  very experienced and highly capable nurses out there taking care of moms. Unless you intend to ask for and analyze your nurse’s background, training and experience in anesthesia, don’t do it. The drugs used in administering epidural analgesia can vary significantly. The dosing (concentration, volume per hour, etc.) can also vary. Only a specialist in anesthesia can answer your questions correctly!

Know what to look for so that if there is some change in your condition or you start to encounter a feeling or loss of function or sensation, you can tell your nurse or doctor immediately so that you can be examined right away!

I suspect many parents are so caught up in the labor process, or are so exhausted after the delivery or so caught up in the wonderment of having their baby that these issues relating to an epidural may not be very important. If you are in your 20′s, 30′s or 40′s, how important is it to you that may not be able to walk for the rest of your life? It can happen – rarely, thank goodness, but it can happen. I have been involved in cases in which this is exactly what happened! Frankly – I don’t want to see it happen to anyone else. It is incredibly tragic for a mom, a dad and their child – trust me!

One last point before we leave this discussion on post-delivery (post-operative) analgesia. Some hospitals (the number appears to be declining due to concerns about the inadequacy of monitoring) use what is known as Patient Controlled Anesthesia epidural analgesia. Simply put, this is a device (they vary depending on the manufacturer) permits the patient to push a button a infuse a pre-determined dose of drugs (e.g. bupivacaine and fentanyl) into the epidural space for additional pain relief. A patient is actually limited as to how much drug can be used in the course of an hour (determined by what in called a lock-out interval and maximum dosing parameters per hour). While a fixed lower amount of drug flows each hour (known as the basal rate), many patients may require more relief than the basal rate provides.

That being said, if you find yourself pushing the PCA button numerous times during the course of an hour, you should bring this to the attention of your nurse or doctor. Don’t wait for them to hopefully check the machine to see how many times you pushed in the last hour (many forget to do this!). Be pro-active. If you are pushing your PCA button a number of times in the course of an hour, even though you can’t really overdose yourself because of pre-set limits by the anesthesiologist, this may be an indication that something needs to be checked. For instance, the catheter may have become displaced; the drugs may not be distributing equally; you may be having some problem that someone needs to investigate. Don’t keep hitting the PCA pump; hit the call button!

Get information about the risks, benefits and alternative to an epidural!

Having been there (i.e. childbirth) as a father four times, I know – at least from my perspective – how difficult it is to concentrate on issues such as risks, benefits and alternatives involving an epidural. Common sense tell me the ideal time to have this discussion simply cannot be while mom is in labor. If that’s the only chance you have, then fine – take the time and make the effort and have a real discussion with the anesthesiologist. Even if you just cover the 3 items I have suggested above, that will take you a long way.

I have made this suggestion before, but I’ll make it again: make arrangements to meet with someone from the anesthesia department before you get to the hospital to delivery your baby. Don’t be shy or concerned that you don’t want to bother anybody. Bother somebody! There really are an awful lot of wonderful doctors and CRNA’s, who would be willing to meet with you, educate you and answer your questions.  It’s your health,  your body, your future – so protect it!

There clearly are more than “3 questions” you should ask. Many of you have been through this. Many of you have medical training and experience. What questions do YOU think a mom-to-be should ask about their epidural.

 


 

The Week in Review: did you miss last week’s posts on health, safety, medicine, law and healthcare?

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

Last week we launched the first in a series called The Week in Review. We hope you enjoy this project as a way to catch-up on what  you may have missed in the world of health, medicine, patient safety, law and healthcare. Now for our second installment.

 

Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. And today? Today is a gift. That’s why we call it the present.”

Inspirational  Quote from Babatunde Olatunji


 

We started the week with Part I in a series of posts intending to explore the issue of whether the ever-growing and expanding advances in medical technology are really accomplishing their goal – or what should be their goal: more efficient, effective and safe delivery of medical care.

The author, Brian Nash, poses the question, “What has technology done to improve healthcare?” Answering in part his own question, he states:

The answer, in short, is – some amazing things and some not so amazing things have taken place in terms of technological advances in healthcare. Unfortunately, as we will explore in this series, some of these technological advances have led to some catastrophic results for patients. One need look no further than how the medical institutions rushed to implement the newest, shiniest and “best” radiology machines and through their haste left in their wake scores of maimed and dead patients.

Read more – Medical Technology and Patient Safety: EMR’s, COW’s, iPads, etc – are they really doing the job?

 

Wednesday’s post by Sarah Keogh explored an often discussed but apparently not always heeded message about car seat safety. Sarah offers some “tips” and suggestions on how to implement simple safety steps to decrease the likelihood of injuries to children while in our cars. She reported -

A recent article on healthychildren.org says that deaths in motor vehicle crashes are still the leading cause of death for young children.

Don’t let this message go unheeded. These are not Sarah’s “tips and tricks” but those of experts in the field of child safety.

Read Sarah’s piece – 4 Tips for Car Seat Safety.

 

The end of last week brought an “interesting” piece by Mike Sanders, also a lawyer with our firm, concerning a so-called study suggesting a possible link between religious activity and obesity. This wasn’t – Mike is quick to point out – a “theory” of his. This was a posting he saw and just couldn’t stop himself from writing about.

While I am usually reluctant to belittle medical research, this study really has me scratching my head and asking, “Who cares?” Before anyone decides to skip church this weekend, let’s look at the details of the study.

Makes one wonder what it takes in today’s world of instant news, internet publishing and blog posting (hmmm), to “get published” as a study.

Read Mike’s piece entitled Can Religion Make You Fat?

The Week Ahead

This coming week will have among its postings Part II in the series about Medical Technology and whether it is doing its job of advancing the safe delivery of healthcare to our population. We’ll start with a topic that is near and dear to all in the healthcare industry – EMR’s – better known as Electronic Medical Records. Sounds like a good idea – right? Since we live in a world of computers, radio buttons and drop down boxes and way too many of us in the field of medical malpractice litigation have made too many visits to the eye doctor from having to reading hand-written medical charts – why wouldn’t this be the next best thing to sliced bread? Well – read Part II coming this week.

We also plan on posting some information and analysis of a medical/anesthesia procedure – the epidural – that thousands of women have every day of every week throughout this country and the world. Well, are they really as safe as some would have you believe? Stay tuned and read our upcoming post.

There are likely to be even more goodies on health, law, patient safety and healthcare in next week’s The Eye Opener from Nash & Associates.

 


Medical Technology and Patient Safety: EMR’s, COW’s, iPads, etc. – are they really doing the job? Blog Series – Part I

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Medical Technology - source: Siemens.com

This is the first installment of a series of posts on issues relating to new advances in medical technology and how they may affect patient health and safety – not always for the good. Unless you live in a cave or just don’t care, you must have noticed news reports about how the medical industry is awash in the creation and implementation of new technologies. Presumably these new medical tech toys and gadgets are intended to advance the timely, enhanced, cost-effective delivery of healthcare with the end point being improved patient care and patient safety. The question is – do they always do that or can they, in fact, be tools the lead to patient injuries and – at times -even death?

I recently came across a posting by Dr. William L. Roper, MPH, CEO of the University of North Carolina Health Care System, which was in essence a transcript of a speech he gave at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Washington, D.C. on March 23, 2011. Among his other vast accomplishments, in the spring of 1986, he was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate for the position of administrator of the federal Health Care Financing Administration, with responsibility for the Medicare and Medicaid programs nationally. For the previous three years, he served on the White House domestic policy staff.

I bring Dr. Roper’s recent remarks to your attention since they are the inspiration for this series of blogs. While Dr. Roper’s address did not specifically address topics such as EMR’s, COW’s (still wondering how a cow fits into this topic? Stay tuned!), and the like, the following selected excerpts are the seeds of thought for the present series:

I have the job of leading an academic medical enterprise, and am 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.

The Institute of Medicine, under Sam Their’s and then Ken Shine’s leadership, played a very important role across the decade of the 1990s, defining “quality” in health care, and pointing to problems in quality and patient safety. Bill Richardson led a multi-year IOM initiative that included the groundbreaking report, To Err is Human in 2000, and then Crossing the Quality Chasm in 2001.

These reports were a clarion call for action – especially making the point that a systems approach was required to deal effectively with these issues.

While Dr. Roper’s speech was, in large part, an historical analysis of progress in the Medicare healthcare delivery system, it is also a well-versed commentary on the so-called advances in medicine for patient care and safety. Why else have so many toiled for so long in trying to find system-failures and methodologies for eradicating those failures and thereby improving the delivery of safe, efficient and effective healthcare?

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 . . . [W]e 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 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?

What has technology done to improve healthcare?

The answer, in short, is – some amazing things and some not so amazing things have taken place in terms of technological advances in healthcare. Unfortunately, as we will explore in this series, some of these technological advances have led to some catastrophic results for patients. One need look no further than how the medical institutions rushed to implement the newest, shiniest and “best” radiology machines and through their haste left in their wake scores of maimed and dead patients. We reported on this investigation by NY Times reporter, Walt Bogdanich  in Eye Opener, over a year ago.

Just over the course of the last year or so, our firm has been involved in case after case in which this issue of medical technology and patient care/safety keeps rearing its ugly and devastating head. We will share with you (leaving identifying information obscured as we are required to do) tales of just how medical technology can impact – positively and (unfortunately) negatively patient health and safety. We’ll analyze and discuss our views on just how well medical technology and its implementation (more the latter) have, in our view, negatively impacted – all too often – patient health and safety. We invite you to follow along as we consider the good, the bad and the ugly of medical technology such as EMR’s, COW’s, iPads and the like. Please join us and share your comments along the way.

Some related posts to get you started:

The Radiation Boom – Radiation Offers New Cures and Ways to Do Harm

FDA Unveils Initiative To Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging

At Hearing on Radiation, Calls for Better Oversight

Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging

The Story of How a New York Times Reporter – Walt Bogdanich – Has Made a Real Difference in Medical Device Radiation Safety