Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog

The Insurance and Financial Advisor News recently published a story that reiterates the reality that limits on malpractice damage awards have little to no effect on health care costs.

Supporters of the caps typically claim that medical costs will be drastically lowered by limiting the amount of money a jury can award a victim of malpractice, regardless of the injury. However data continues to roll in revealing that claim to be nothing more than a false myth used to push a specific political agenda. In fact, a report by the Congressional Budget Office in 2004 explained that limiting the damage awards, at a maximum, influence healthcare costs by less than one half of one percent.

However, regardless of the truth, many state medical lobbies have effectively passed state laws to create arbitrary caps on damage awards for malpractice victims. For example, Florida has a $500,000 cap for regular doctors and $150,000 caps for emergency room doctors. Investigators into the state explained that over 1/3 of doctors in many area do not even have malpractice insurance. In those cases, the victims of an uninsured doctor likely have no means to receive compensation for the mistakes made and losses suffered.

Continue reading "Malpractice Caps Shown to Have No Effect On Medical Costs" »

The Center for Justice and Democracy recently produced a new document that summarizes recent malpractice studies. The main take-away from the research is that that “crisis” of malpractice is not caused by lawsuits, but by the actual committing of malpractice. In other words, the way to solve the problems is to ensure that patients are given proper care, not taking away their legal rights after they are unnecessarily harmed by negligent doctors.

For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently reported that about 1 in 7 patients may have suffered a medical mistake, known as an “adverse event.” Extrapolated out, those numbers are stark: over 134,000 Medicare beneficiaries harmed by doctor each month alone. Of that group 1.5% died as a result of the error—a figure that represents almost 15,000 patients per month.

The cost of the mistakes continues to rise, both in personal and financial ways. Overall, the same HHS report projected the price of the malpractice to hover around $4.4 billion per year. That figure was reached conservatively, without considering the additional costs required for follow-up care following complications from the medical negligence.

Another study published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine reported similar findings. The summary is consistent with common harm, frequent mistakes, and underreporting of errors.

Continue reading "New Fact Sheet Explains Recent Medical Malpractice Studies" »

The Chicago Tribune recently published a story involving a doctor who admits to developing an intense drug addiction–it was a problem that put many patients at risk. The doctor, Richard Ready, developed the destructive habit during medical school, and it continued throughout his rise as the chief resident of neurosurgery at a Chicago hospital.

To get through his daily rounds during the second year of his residency he became a regular user of Tylenol mixed with codeine. Eventually he was taking up to 70 pills each day in order to meet his craving. He explained how at times he would look sick right before getting ready to operate, and so he would quickly take 10 pills and then begin the procedure.

Unfortunately the doctor’s conduct is not as unique as one might expect. Recent studies indicate that as many as 1 in 10 doctors are battling either drug or alcohol additions—with more doctors struggling with the drugs than the alcohol. In Illinois alone, the state’s medical licensing board reprimanded or suspended 156 professionals for these types of problems last year. Obviously the number of abusers is much larger than the small percentage that happens to be punished for the conduct.

Stories like those of this doctor are motivators behind a new push for mandatory drug testing for all medical professionals. However, it is unclear whether this type of regulation will become mandatory as many groups are fighting in opposition.

Tribune reporters discussed the sad reality with one of our firm’s founders, Chicago malpractice lawyer Steve Levin, who explained, “To go to a doctor who is impaired can really have deadly consequences. It’s no different than an airline pilot who is using drugs or alcohol in that you’re often dealing with life-and-death circumstances.”

Continue reading "Doctor Shares Story of Drug Addiction to Emphasize Scope of the Problem" »

Early this month a commission charged with looking at ways to cut the U.S. deficit publically released various parts of its plan. The scope of the plan is sweeping, cutting $4 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade, including steep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

In response to the release the president of the American Association for Justice, Gibson Vance, commented on some of the more troubling aspects of the report. He explained that the proposals outline by the commission would ultimately create a healthcare system that produces worse outcomes but is more expensive.

The outcome of the proposals would essentially leave many patients injured by medical errors with no options to address their losses—taxpayers would ultimately have to pay these costs. Also, it is unlikely that most Americans would prefer expensive new health courts or new health guidelines that will limit the work that physicians can perform, he explains. More government bureaucracy is not what is needed.

Completely silent in the report is any mention of the epidemic of medical mistakes that continue to plague hospitals across the country. Vance goes on to highlight that new research by both the New England Journal of Medicine and the Department of Health and Human Services indicate that there remains a crisis at many hospitals, with patients dying daily from preventable medical errors. The proposals outline by the debt commission do nothing to address that concern, weakens the healthcare system overall, and ultimately requires taxpayers to pay more.

Continue reading "American Association for Justice Comments on U.S. Deficit Commission Report" »

Several recent letters to the editor published in the New York Times emphasize important points in the on-going debate about tort reform laws, medical care standards, and the rights of victims of medical malpractice. Recent comments made by Administration Official Peter Orszag suggesting immunity for some doctors who follow certain guidelines has renewed the debate.

In particular, physician groups and patients’ rights groups have disagreed on the value of specific guidelines to practicing medicine. In one of the letters, Gibson Vance, President of the American Association for Justice, explains that the notion of specific guidelines may be attractive on its face, but it is completely impractical in reality. For example, when mammogram guidelines were created, doctors felt handcuffed by the fact that the standard may have suggested no test was needed—even though he or she personally felt one should have been given.

The focus around the entire debate needs to be refocused on reducing the thousands of costly medical mistakes each year, not merely providing immunity to certain caregivers.

Of course these evidence-based analyses should play a role in determining what is or is not malpractice, but the entire process of deducing proper care cannot be sublimated to those generic factors. For one thing, there will always be disagreement between practitioners regarding certain standards. Those standards themselves may change over time or be proven wrong. When a wrong diagnosis is made, strict adherence to those standards may then lead to even further complications.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at Levin & Perconti support the broad understanding that medical standards help in determining proper care, but we believe that those guidelines remain part of the process, not the entire process. Doctors’ should not be given blanket immunities for a rigid set of actions regardless of the harm those actions cause their patient. The system must remain fluid and medical malpractice victims must keep their access to the justice system—allowing them the chance to share their story and allow a jury to provide rulings as intended.

The Huffington Post recently included an article from the Center for Justice and Democracy that sheds light on the reality behind victim’s access to the court system following medical malpractice and medical insurance rates.

Most are aware of the claims made about rising insurance rates for medical care providers and the connection to medical malpractice lawsuits. Lawyers and victims’ right advocates have been vilified in some circles for the apparent increase in medical malpractice insurance rates. Many claim that jury verdicts and victimized Americans patients who seek accountability for negligent doctors are the true culprits behind a problematic rise in insurance costs. The advocates of this view are the ones urging that access to the justice system be cut-off to regular Americans. Unfortunately, in many areas the changes have already been made and consumers have lost legal rights.

However, looking at the insurance rates over the an extended period of time reveals clearly that rates have gone up and down in several cycles over the past decades, irrespective of jury awards or victims’ lawsuits.

The reality is that insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws, meaning that they are allowed to collectively raise rates. In that way, the industry fluctuates between soft and hard markets. In soft market times, the companies are fiercely competitive, lowering rates. In hard market times, the companies collectively increase rates.

The fact remains that there is little connection between these market fluctuations and changes in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits or the right of victims to seek justice.

Victims deserve a fair day in court—there is nothing to fear about allowing justice to play out exactly how it was intended. Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at Levin & Perconti will never give up the fight for accountable medical care, equal protection, and logical improvements in our nation’s healthcare system. We will continue to stand up against corporate interests that seek to take away average Americans right to justice.

There is much more information to share on this important topic. Please Click Here to read more.

Chances are that within 5 minutes of turning on the television these days you will treated to at least one campaign ad urging support for a candidate or smearing another. With so many heated elections to be decided next Tuesday, the flurry of campaign activity has reached a fevered pitch.

In the middle of the chaos is one election with real implications for all those who care about safe medical care and the rights of victims of malpractice. This year one our Illinois Supreme Court Justices, Thomas Kilbride, is up for a retention election. He is not running against an opponent, but according to state rules must have at least 60% of voters vote “Yes” to retain him as a Justice on our state’s highest court. Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti highly endorse Justice Kilbride and urge voters to retain this fair-minded, intelligent, logic legal leader.

Unfortunately, a few very specific special-interest groups are working to disparage Justice Kilbride’s record in an effort to confuse voters. Fortunately, a wide-range of respected organizations are working to set to record straight and condemn the unfair attacks on the Justice.

For example, this week the Illinois Judges Association recently re-stated its support for Justice Kilbride and against the ouch-of-touch special interest strategy attacking him. They explain that these vicious strategies used in retention elections threaten to ruin the fairness and impartiality of our nation’s justice system. Unlike legislative and executive campaigns, the judicial branch of government requires even-handed logical decision-making and rule application as its benchmark. Campaign tactics with slick production ads and slanted truth seeks only to advance a few special interests at the expense for a balanced justice system for all.

Justice Thomas Kilbride has worked hard to make decision based on law, not policy, as the state constitution requires. He has followed that basic principle regarding all issues from access to the courts and criminal justice to business rights and all other issues that make it to the court. That fair-minded effort has recently been distorted and misrepresented by interests working to get their “own” justice on the court who will make decisions based on who got them into the position instead of what the law requires. We cannot afford to allow these groups to infect our legal system.

Please get more information about Justice Kilbride and make an informed decision this Tuesday. Vote YES to retain Tom Kilbride and urge your friends and family to do the same. Do your part to help ensure the Illinois court remains a strong, fair, logical system of justice.

The American Association of Justice issued a new report today that highlights a clear example of hypocrisy by a major interest group involved in the U.S. Justice System.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent millions of dollars and focused immense resources on lobbying campaigns aimed at limiting regular consumers’ access to the courthouse. The group’s affiliate, the Institute for Legal Reform, works every day to add barriers and restrictions to the right of individuals harmed by corporations to file lawsuits against those corporations.

Groups like the U.S. Chamber have worked hard to bar the courtroom door. But a new AAJ report explains that the U.S. Chamber itself files hundreds of lawsuits each year to advance its own interests. Apparently the justice system is only fair to the Chamber when they are doing the suing.

The Chamber’s President and CEO explained this week that litigation was, “one of our most powerful tools for making sure that the federal agencies follow the law and are held accountable.”

The National Chamber Litigation Center, the part of the organization charged with filing lawsuits on behalf of the group, annually initiates over 130 suits. Nearly 2 times a week, the group is at it again using the court system to advance it goals—while at the same time claiming that regular individuals shouldn’t have fair access to that same court system.

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti continually work for the opposite cause: to allow all victims the same balanced access to the nation’s justice system. We do not believe that there is anything wrong with allowing our truth-finding judicial process to play out. There is nothing to fear from allowing potential medical victims, no matter where they come from or how much money they have, to enjoy their day in court. In that way, the system truly creates a level playing field where single individuals can stand up to anyone and seek justice.

As the AAJ President explains, “The Chamber has every right to seek what it believes to be justice in a court of law, even if representing the most deplorable corporate interests. But it must learn that this right to justice belongs not just to their organization or big business generally, but to all Americans.”

To read more about this shameful example of unequal access to American Justice, check out the full AAJ report Here.

Our product liability lawyers at Levin & Perconti have been following the unfolding developments in the DePuy implant recall in an effort to raise awareness with potential victims. The recall affects nearly 100,000 implant packages, causing an untold number of patients to suffer failure of their devices. With so many potentially defective devices, many patients who received DePuy implants are unsure of what they should do.

First, if you have had a hip implant, be sure to contact your doctor to see if it was made by DePuy.

For those who discover that they were fitted with a recalled hip implant, many are wondering whether they have to wait for their own implant to fail before taking steps to contact a lawyer or seek redress. However, as emphasized by Lawyers and Settlement News, it is vitally important for all implant recipients to remember, that there is no need to wait for severe problems to arise before at least talking to a product liability lawyer. In that way you can learn about the latest developments in the recall effort.

In addition, the lawyer can assist you in getting tested for metallosis, which is a problem caused by metal shards entering the body. The shards are common in DePuy hip implants because of potential design defects caused by rubbing in the metal-on-metal device. Metallosis is a problem that an implant patient may be suffering from without even knowing it.

Of course it goes without saying that if you have a DePuy implant and begin feeling severe problems, you should seek medical attention immediately. Any pain in the hip, popping, grinding, or clicking might mean that the device is failing.

If that is the case, you may need revision surgery which involves potential complications and long recovery times. That revision procedure can be complex and painful. If that occurs, it is imperative that you contact a lawyer to learn more about the legal situation to protect your rights.

The DePuy company, a part of Johnson & Johnson, has already been alleged to have defectively designed the product, knowing that it would fail at higher rates. In addition they failed to adequately warn patients about the risks or conduct proper tests to ensure the safety of the devices.

Contact a lawyer for a consultation to share your story and learn about the legal landscape.

The stories continue to roll in alleging severe complications, flaws, and information problems related to hip implants made by DePuy Orthopaedics. This latest lawsuit reported in AboutLawsuits.com alleges that the company, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, lied to patients when making claims that it would reimburse them if they experienced problems following the implant.

The claims stem from the implant maker’s recall of DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Systems. This particular metal-on-metal implant was found to fail in at least 13% of patients, causing complications and risky surgery to fix the problem. The problems affected nearly 100,000 implants.

Specifically, the new lawsuit involves claims made by the company to patients indicating that DePuy would reimburse patients for out-of-pocket medical expenses if they signed a release proving the company with access to their medical record. In truth, the company is only committing to reimbursing patients in cases when DePuy officials themselves unilaterally chose to. Essentially this means that many patients are signing away important legal rights. The deception is making it difficult for victims of the implant problems from receiving important compensation to help cover their costs.

In recent weeks our product recall lawyers at Levin & Perconti have repeatedly urged all those who may have been affected by these hip recall problems to contact professional legal help. As this latest development makes clear, literally thousands and thousands of patients may have suffered (and continue to suffer) because of faulty design, inadequate information, and misleading data about these DePuy hip implants. It is vitally important to contact professional legal help before signing any documents that may affect your legal rights.

Do not allow this potential medical complication to go unchecked. If you or a loved one has gotten a hip replacement recently, contact a medical professional to determine if it falls within this latest recall. Also, be sure to speak with a product recall attorney to ensure the legal matters are handled fairly and accurately.

We have previously discussed a lawsuit involving a girl injured following an inoculation she received as a young child. The New York Times recently editorialized on the family’s quest to hold the makers of the damaging vaccine accountable reached the United States Supreme Court last week, when the Justices heard oral arguments in the case Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.

The outcome of the case will have repercussions in many other pending lawsuits in which injured individuals have filed state lawsuits against the manufacturers of vaccines that cased them harm. In that way, it will set an important benchmark for all those interested in patients’ rights and the fair recovery for families suffering following vaccine problems.

Specifically, the heart of the case concerns the legal concept known as “pre-emption.” The term involves determining when a federal law overrides a state law on a certain topic—in this case, the right to sue manufacturers for vaccine mistakes. The drug companies are arguing that a federal law which regulates federal claims of this nature should force the state law to operate in the same way. In other words, they assert that if a type of vaccine lawsuit is not allowed in the federal court system, than it also should not be allowed according to state law.

However, on the other side, patients’ rights groups rightful argue that our justice system has always honored the federalist tradition, where state laws are free to diverge from federal laws so long as the federal law did not specifically intend to force the hand of all state legislatures across the country. The Supreme Court has stated clearly that there is a strong presumption against pre-emption. States should be free to protect citizens in certain ways, even if the federal government does not.

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti continue to stand by our faith and belief in the legal justice system. At the very least, families suffering because of these inoculation injuries should be given a fair hearing in the court of justice, and the manufacturers should be able to present their defense. We must then trust the judge and jury to weigh the evidence and make the appropriate ruling. Stopping the process before it even reaches that point is arbitrary, unfair, and against the spirit of the judicial system.

As new cases of problematic DePuy hip replacement implants continue to roll in, orthopedic surgeons across the country are attempting to handle the crisis by unveiling a new registry to help track the myriad of knee and hip implants problems nationwide.

AboutLawsuits.com is reporting on the effort now known as the American Joint Replacement Registry. The program initially covers only 15 select hospitals but the organizers have plans to expand it to all 5,000 hospitals that perform these procedures. The project intends to keep detailed records of the quality of replacements, helping doctors better understand when an implant may need replacement or when a particular product is shown to deteriorate too quickly.

The DePuy hip recall, involving over 93,000 hip implants, has made clear the need for the registry as many patients who received the defective implants are still unaware that there is a problem with the product. The hope is that the registry will help save future victims of bad implants from the pain of revision as well as the industry the cost. Over $32 billion is spent annually to fix poorly designed and installed replacements.

The concerns for all those who have hip replacements only grows, however, as similar problems are now being reported with another brand of replacement implants: Zimmer NextGen knee replacements. Though not yet recalled, over 36% of Zimmer knee replacements are being shown to come loose too quickly. Investigators believe that the problem is a result of the implant’s design. As a result, like the problematic DePuy implants, these knee implants require expensive and risky revision surgeries.

Our Chicago product liability lawyers at Levin & Perconti are committed to ensuring that all medical equipment, supplies, and implants are safe and secure across the board. When a product is found to be defective, it is vital for all those who may have been exposed to the problematic device to contact a product liability attorney as soon as possible to ensure that their safety is secure and their medical rights are protected. Time is important in these matters, so please do not delay in seeking legal help.

Vaccination injuries and their legal consequences have long been a complicated and debated area of the law. While millions of lives have been saved by the development of vaccinations over the years, the undeniable truth is that many children suffer lifelong injuries after receiving them. The possible range of childhood injuries continues to grow, as a spate of lawsuits has recently been filed that suggest that a link exists between vaccines and autism. As reported in the New York Times, The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a new case that may ultimately have consequences for all vaccine injury challenges in the future.

The main issue in the upcoming case involves the specific meaning of a 25 year old Congressional law and the legislation’s effect on product liability suits against vaccine manufacturers. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act attempted to balance the need to compensate those injured by vaccinations while encouraging manufacturers to continue developing safer products. In essence, the law offers clear legal advantages for victims to use an alternative legal process, known as “vaccine court,” to adjudicate their claims.

The problem is that the vaccine court is increasingly seen as unfairly denying many valid claims from injured children and their families. In most cases, the court will deny any claims that allege injuries that do not fall within a rigid table of possible vaccine injuries—autism, for example, is not on the list. Even worse (and at the heart of this case) is the argument that the 1986 Act which created the court also bars those denied families the chance to sue vaccine manufacturers in regular civil court for their conduct.

For example, the parents of one family filed a claim with the vaccine court after their daughter suffered severe problems upon getting a DTP vaccine to guard against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetnus. Their daughter experienced seizures mere hours after receiving the immunization. She is now a teenager, is non-verbal, continues to suffer from seizures, and requires around the clock care. However, their claim was rejected by the vaccine court, because it did not fall into the rigid definitional categories adjudicated by the body.

As an alternative, the family filed a regular state law claim alleging “design defects” in the manufacturing of the vaccine. Specifically, they claim that the company which made the vaccine given to their daughter knew that there was a safer product than the version of DTP that was administered and yet did nothing to produce the safer version. Challengers to the family’s claim, however, believe that the family does not even possess the right to pursue the lawsuit, because that right was taken from them by the 1986 Law that created the vaccine court.

That is exactly the disagreement that the Supreme Court will settle with the upcoming case. The high court heard oral arguments on the issue earlier in the week and will issue a ruling sometime in the next several months.

The particular legal question presented by the specific case involves a variety of nuances including statute interpretation, potential conflict of laws, and public policy considerations. But our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti continually share our belief in the importance of fair and equal access to the court system for all potential victims. We have unwaveringly advocated for allowing the courtroom process of judge and jury to hear all disputes, make a ruling, and provide remedy when necessary. Our medical injury lawyers oppose all measures that seek to take that right away, whether it is arbitrary damage caps or statutory interpretations that give large manufacturers blanket immunity.

A new study by the Journal of the American Medical Association and analyzed at MedScape Today reveals that doctors usually fail to report their concerns about incompetent and impaired doctors to appropriate officials.

Most doctors admit that they have a duty to report any time they witness a doctor who for any reason is unable to provide the reasonable level of medical care that a patient deserves. However, the levels of actual reporting on negligent doctors fall far below the level that it should.

The survey which revealed these discouraging results was conducted last year, using a nationwide sample that included cardiologists, general surgeons, pediatricians, psychiatrists, internists, anesthesiologists, and family practitioners. Overall, 64% of respondents agreed that they have a professional obligation to report any fellow doctor who was incompetent or otherwise impaired to perform appropriate medical care.

Yet, one out of three of those doctors admitted that they had been confronted with a situation where they knew a colleague should not be providing care, but decided not to mention anything to anyone.

The medical researcher who conducted the survey mentioned the discouraging and dangerous effect of these failures to report, writing, “All health care professionals, from administrative leaders to those providing clinical care, must understand the urgency of preventing impaired or incompetent colleagues from injuring patients and the need to help these physicians confront and resolve their problems.”

The author admits that as it stands now patients are currently exposed to needless risk. A representative for the Chicago-based Institute for Ethics, American Medical Association admitted that the current system needs to be improved, calling for education, socialization of the problem, and better protection for medical whistle-blowers who risk backlash for confessing the substandard care being provided by institutions.

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti are disheartened, but not surprised by these latest survey results. Our legal battles on behalf of medical malpractice victims has revealed that other doctors often allow patients to risk injury from medical error rather than step in and stop incompetent colleagues. That fact makes it all the more necessary for injured patients and their family and friends to contact their own representatives if they have been harmed by a negligent medical professional.

An Arlington soldier is dealing with the repercussions of a medical error in difficult way. The 21 year old airman lost his legs after a botched gallbladder surgery at a military hospital, according to the Star-Telegram. The victim had agreed to have laparoscopic gallbladder surgery after enduring stomach problems. During the procedure, an instrument being threaded through his stomach nicked his aorta artery, cutting off the flow to his legs. He was then transferred to another medical hospital, where both of his legs were amputated. His lawyer believes that this constituted gross violations of the US medical act. To read more about this specific medical malpractice case, please click the link.

Currently, however, the medical malpractice victim is in a battle with the U.S. court system. According to a 1950 Supreme Court decision, military personnel or their families are not allowed to collect damages from military doctors for medical negligence. This is known as Feres Doctrine. Not only will the medical malpractice victim not be able to recover for medical damages, his wife will be unable to file for loss of consortium. Currently, a Congressman is introducing legislation in order to change that policy.

The "Feres Doctrine” only applies to those active men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who suffer injury at the negligent hands of other members of the Armed Forces. Since military personnel staff military hospitals, this keeps those victims of medical negligence from being able to file suit in federal court. This doctrine greatly hinders the rights of military medical personnel. The Chicago medical malpractice attorneys of Levin & Perconti support recent efforts to invoke legislation that will override this doctrine.

Patient Safety experts at Johns Hopkins are taking their prescription for avoiding medical errors at hospitals beyond the “no fault, no blame” approaches. They are now calling for penalties for doctors and nurses who fail to comply with proven safety measures. The experts believe that penalties should apply when current “no blame” practices designed to prevent recurrences stall, and after warnings and counseling have failed to change health care workers’ behavior. The experts state that since medical mistakes continue to occur, its time to add some accountability and enforcement policies to address and stop unsafe practices. They are beginning a study hoping to decrease the 100,000 yearly deaths in the United States from infections picked up by people while undergoing treatment. Under their new system, health care workers who persistently fail to wash their hands before entering a patient’s room would be required to undergo mandatory training and re-education classes. Repeated failure to use and sign surgical checklists when inserting catheters would be punished as well. The medical world needs to understand that the right balance between no blame and individual accountability is that doing so will save lives. To read more about individual accountability, please click the link.

Patrick Malone wrote an article for the Huffington Post discussing the lack of accountability of doctors in medical malpractice. In the medical industry, a doctor will lose his or her license for only flagrant patterns of drug or alcohol abuse or other criminal behavior. The health care’s big safety emphasis in recent years has been to create a “no blame” culture that encourages reporting of medical errors and injuries by promises of confidentiality and non-punitive action. This idea was implemented so that medical errors can be corrected by implementing “systems” changes, such as checklists to make sure all appropriate steps are taken to prevent infections. Yet this system also allows physicians who repeatedly put their patients in jeopardy to ignore the rules. This occurs often when surgeons don’t follow the now routine practice of “signing the site” to prevent wrong-site surgery. This explains why an estimated 4,000 wrong-site surgeries are still performed every year in the United States. Some medical safety leaders are starting to call for accountability for rules violations. They stated that “every safe industry has transgressions that are firing offenses.” They proposed a short list of offenses in the hospital that call for suspension of a doctor’s practice for a limited time such as: failing to perform hand hygiene, skipping the sign-over to a new provider at the end of a shift, not marking the surgical site, and failing to use a checklist at the start of surgery to make sure everyone in the operating room knows the special needs of the patient. To read more about doctor accountability, please click the link.

A hospital, where officials say a nurse may have exposed more than 1,800 patients to HIV and hepatitis by reusing medical supplies, says that patients are currently being tested for HIV. Officials at the hospital said that 410 of the 1,851 potentially exposed patients have been tested. Earlier this month the hospital discovered that 59-year-old nurse was reusing IV tubing and saline bags during cardiac chemical stress tests. While hospital officials said that the chances of infection are low, it cannot be ruled out. Police are currently investigating this tremendous medical error. To read more about the medical malpractice, please click the link.

A recent investigation by the Hearst Company has drawn attention to the fact that approximately 200 thousand Americans will die this year from preventable medical errors and hospital infections. Currently 20 states have no medical error reporting system in place, five have voluntary ones and five more are developing reporting systems. Even in the 20 states that have the mandatory systems, hospitals report only a tiny percentage of their mistakes, standards vary wildly and enforcement is often nonexistent. The report also blames special interests for blocking progress in the area of medical reporting. A news medical correspondent described some of the most common medical miscues and offered advice to help keep one from being a victim of medical malpractice.

- Make sure surgeons personally sign or initial the skin of the patient over the area that’s being operated on; patients should remind all surgical personnel about the side and site of the procedure
- Patient’s should ask what every single medication is that they’re given while in the hospital and remind everyone who approaches them with drugs of any allergies they have
- Always look the surgeon in the eye before the operation to avoid any possibility of mistaken identity.

Communication is the greatest key to preventing medical errors which are oftentimes caused by
- Poor documentation
- Illegible handwriting
- Sleep deprivation
- Improper nurse to patient ratios

To read more about the medical mistake survey, please click the link.

According to a recent study, men and women are increasingly seeking the physician profession despite concerns that medical malpractice suits will send physicians “fleeing the profession.” The only states where physician growth did not outpace the population were states that have medical malpractice caps on jury awards. The article also found that “health-care quality and patient safety are far worse in states that have eliminated accountability through tort reform measures.”

Read more about medical malpractice litigation effects on the medical profession here.