September 29th, 2009 by BarbaraFicarraRN in Better Health Network, Health Tips
No Comments »
This post isn’t being written to frighten you or to cause you to mistrust hospitals.
It’s to make you aware that medical errors do occur, but there are steps that you can take to help prevent medical errors from happening.
First, some vital information
According to a recent investigation by the Hearst Corporation, a staggering 200,000 Americans will die each year from preventable medical errors and hospital infections. This report comes ten years after the highly-publicized report, “To Err Is Human” which found 98,000 Americans were dying each year of medical errors. Instead of the number of medical errors decreasing, it nearly doubled.
Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Health in 30*
August 11th, 2009 by Paul Auerbach, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips
No Comments »
One of the most dangerous times for a patient is during the transition, or “handoff,” between providers. This is due to a number of reasons. First, the original provider(s) may not relay all the information he or she knows about the patient to the next provider(s). Second, the accepting team may take it for granted that everything is known about the patient, and therefore not take a complete history or perform an adequate physical examination. Third, if the patient initially looks good, the accepting providers may be lulled into a false sense of security, and not anticipate a deterioration in the patient’s condition.
We know this problem to exist in the hospital setting. Survey of doctors-in-training suggests that handoffs may commonly lead to patient harm. Last year (2008) in September, there was a blog written by Elizabeth Cooney in the Boston Globe that stated, “a 2006 survey of resident physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital found that handoffs commonly lead to patient harm, according to an article in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.” More than 50 percent “of the 161 medical or surgical residents who responded to the anonymous survey said they recalled at least one occasion in their last month-long rotation when a patient suffered from flawed handoffs.” Approximately “one in nine said the harm that resulted was significant.” The respondents said that “if the patient was coming from the emergency department or from another hospital, problematic handoffs were more likely.”
This holds true in the field. Unless the new treatment team makes the assumption that they need to begin their assessment of the patient’s condition from scratch, they are more likely to make a mistake. Obviously, such caution depends on the possible severity of the patient’s condition and the rescue/environmental situation. If I can get a decent handle on a patient’s condition, and there is little or no risk of me missing something, I will tailor my questioning and examination to suit the circumstances. However, I always start from the position that something has been hidden from me, of course not intentionally, and that the patient’s initial assessment has underestimated the problem(s).
I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have found something that was missed, or have accepted the care of a patient just as he or she began to “crash.” This is in no way a criticism of others, just a common fact of medical care. Previous rescuers may have been tired, the conditions may not have been conducive to a full examination, the patient may have been withholding information, or the situation may have just taken its natural course and worsened. Regardless, it’s my responsibility to learn what I can as quickly as I can about my patient, so that nothing slips through the cracks.
Here are some simple rules to follow:
1. If the situation permits, ask your new patient to repeat his or her history. If they are reticent to engage in a long conversation, at least try to get them to relate current relevant events.
2. Repeat as much of the physical examination as you can. Explain to the patient that you have assumed their care, and that in order to do the best that you can on their behalf, it’s important for you to understand their issues and to be able to monitor their progress based up the exam.
3. Assume that until you have talked to the patient or otherwise obtained a comprehensive history, and performed a physical examination with your own hands, eyes, and ears, that you do not know as much about your patient as you could.
4. If a patient is under your care for a prolonged time, or if you are managing a situation prone to rapid or undetected deterioration, interview and examine your patient as often as is necessary and practical. If you must be absent from a patient for a longer period than is prudent between examinations, delegate the responsibility to someone else.
image of leg splinting courtesy of www.princeton.edu
This post, Dropping The Ball In Patient Care: Provider Handoffs, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Paul Auerbach, M.D..
June 29th, 2009 by Shadowfax in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
Surgery Residency, Massachusetts General Hospital and Work Limits – Health Blog – WSJ
It’s not surprising that newly minted doctors at one of the most prestigious hospitals in the country, and in a specialty with a particularly demanding residency, have been violating national limits on work hours.
But the Boston Globe’s report that Massachusetts General Hospital must rein in surgical residents’ hours is a reminder that the work limits put in place several years ago remain unpopular with many residents and senior doctors.
Not surprising in the least. I’m actually astonished that there’s anybody with the chutzpah to defend extended work hours for residents. I did my residency largely in the pre-hour-restriction era — there were hour restrictions on months in the ER, but effectively none for the off-service rotations — and it was a terrible way to deliver care. I did my time of q3 call in the units and q2 call on surgical services. This includes a memorable time when I was the sole intern on the pediatric surgical service and was on duty for ten days straight without leaving the hospital. That gives a new meaning to being a “resident physician!” (Actually, that’s the original meaning, if you must get picky about it.)
The care provided was just scary. I prided myself on being a machine and able to get through 36 hours of uninterrupted work without cracking; I used to run marathons and endurance was my forte. And I did get through it better than most. But after 24 hours with no down time (and there was never meaningful down time), you get stupid, and you make mistakes. I remember once, in the medical ICU I was surprised in morning rounds to find that one of my patients had had a swann-ganz catheter placed overnight. Caught flat-footed by this in front of the attending, I asked the nurse who had put in a swann without telling me, only to be informed that I had done the procedure! Apparently I was too sleep-addled to recall that I had done it! Fortunately, I had apparently done it right, because a swann involves threading a catheter through the heart into the pulmonary vessels and can be Very Bad [tm] if you screw it up. But I apparently did it by reflex without actually achieving a state of full wakefulness. This sort of thing was fairly routine, and I also remember well the overnight residents being excoriated in morning rounds for the errors and misjudgments they had made overnight. Great training, but not so great for the patients who were the victims of the mistakes.
It seems to me that the defenders of the status quo have donned their rose-colored glasses. They fondly remember the camaraderie and the pride in accomplishment that their residencies evoked, while conveniently forgetting the mistakes and omissions, while neglecting the depression and divorces and other personal costs of such an abusive training environment. And there’s the faux toughness: “I got through it, they can, too if they’re not too weak.” And the old guard romanticize the qualities of the “true physician” in their dedication to their patients above all else: “These younger doctors just don’t care enough.”
What a load of crap.
Look, it’s with damn good cause that other professions in which errors can hurt people have work time restrictions (truck drivers, airline pilots, etc), and it’s stupid and arrogant to think that we physicians are so awesome that we are immune to the human factors of fatigue and circadian rhythms that contribute to errors. When it’s inexperienced trainees working the ridiculous hours with minimal supervision (in many cases), the potential for fatigue-related errors is compounded.
I also question the motivations of some of those who defend the status quo. It seems strangely self-serving that residency directors who would otherwise have to find attending physicians or PAs to perform the work that residents do on the government’s dime are the ones to insist that the situation is just fine, or that “the evidence of benefit is lacking.” How cool is it that they can ignore reams of research on human factors, take the a priori position that the system is fine as it is, and demand formal evidence on “efficacy, safety and cost” before making any changes? That’s balls! It’s also fairly blatant obstructionism and should not be given any credence.
Dr Bob of Medrants has some thoughtful comments on the matter, mostly pleading for flexibility in the new rules. I would mostly agree, excepting that flexibility is best given to those who have proven themselves trustworthy, and residency directors (especially but not exclusively of surgical training programs) have repeatedly and flagrantly flouted the rules thus far imposed. Flexibility is fine, but accountability should also be demanded.
I would also take issue with Dr Bob’s comment that this “training system that has served our profession well for many years.” I look at the statistics on physician burnout, substance abuse, divorce, depression and suicide. They are terribly concerning. I would not lay all of this at the feet of residency, but I would say that the abusive (I’m sorry, “rigorous”) environment of residency training sets the tone for the culture of machismo that harms physicians as much as it harms patients. Nobody is well-served by the current system.
It is true that change might be painful. Reducing hours might mean reducing patient contacts and reducing the training opportunities for physicians. This might require academic centers to revalue the time of physicians in training, by which I mean that residents might no longer be used as free menial laborers. Maybe it doesn’t make sense to have a surgical resident “running the book” — many surgical residents never see the inside of the OR till their second and third years. The universities might have to hire PAs or NPs for the “scut work” instead of using MDs in training as glorified secretaries (what a waste of time and money).
I’m glad the Institue of Medicine and the ACGME seem to be on the right path with the recommendations. The reactionary response from the change-resistant academic centers will take some time and political will to overcome. I remember when they first imposed the rules, they followed it up by decertifying the Internal Medicine program at Hopkins for violating the rules. That effected the desired change, I can tell you! Hopefully, as the restrictions evolve, there will be accountability and enforcement until the culture starts to shift.
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
May 3rd, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network
2 Comments »
Bolstered by the stimulus, there’s no doubt that there’s a significant push for doctors and hospitals to adopt digital medical records.
I’ve written before how we’re essentially throwing money at Windows 95 technology, but now, as an article from BusinessWeek points out, there’s a real danger in moving too fast.
Somewhat under-publicized were the incompatibilities with older systems in the Geisinger Health System, which after spending $35 million on software, noticed a spike medication errors that required another $2 million to fix.
Or what happened at the University of Pennsylvania, which found medication errors stemming from software designed to prevent mistakes.
Worse, there is no national database tracking the errors that are caused from electronic medical records. Because most of the programs are not open-source, confidentiality agreements meant to protect proprietary technology also serve to hide mistakes.
Ideally, these issues need to be resolved before throwing more money into bad technology. But, because of the intuitive notion that technology automatically improves health care, no one seems to be advocating a more cautious route which may, in actuality, better serve patients.
***
Better Health Editor’s Note: Please read this post for more in-depth coverage of how difficult it is to transfer health records electronically.
