Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center announced Monday that more than 200 patients received excessive doses of radiation because of a programming error in a CT scanner. Incredibly, the medical center said affected patients received eight times the normal dosage of radiation and that the error went unnoticed for about 18 months. Exposure to excessive amounts of radiation has been linked to cancer and other health problems.

Exposure to normal dose of radiation to treat or diagnose disease comes with serious health risks to patients that are already vulnerable. So this is awful news but, hopefully, the victims will tolerate this excessive radiation well.

Recently-passed laws in several states, including Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., require hospitals to detail serious injuries; this reveals the frequency and variety of so-called “never events” which should never happen. The laws are different in each state. Virginia's public records identify the hospitals by name, but Maryland and Washington, D.C.'s don't name names.

Five years ago, a Maryland law was passed requiring Maryland hospitals to report errors that led to death and serious harm. This month, the Maryland commission that sets hospital rates is using a new system that ranks hospitals on how often they commit 52 specific mistakes, from preventable obstetrical complications to infections of wounds that develop after surgery. Maryland hospitals that report the most mistakes from that list will be required to bill insurers at a lower reimbursement rate. In other words, good hospitals will make more money.

I think most Maryland malpractice hospital lawyers support this idea. The better hospitals get more money, which motivates them to get better. I worry, though, about any hospital that is last on this list. No real motive for the hospital to get better because they are too far from the higher reimbursement. But the rich Maryland hospitals get richer while the poor hospitals get poorer with no motivation to get better.

Again, I like the idea but there is a potential downside.

Infections just happen. Or do they? CNN published a story today that questions the "infections happen" defense. Dr. Alfonso Torress-Cook, director of epidemiology and patient safety at Pacific Hospital of Long Beach California, has reduced the infection rate at his hospital to down to 0.01 per 1,000 discharges, 430 times better than the national average. Read that again: 430 times. Incredible.

The doctor's strategy? Don't go after all bacteria, just the dangerous ones. The hospital uses antibiotics sparingly, feed patients yogurt to replenish healthy bacteria in the gut and bathe patients daily, using a soap that maintains the natural pH of the patient's skin, killing only bad bacteria.

Jury Verdict Research reports on recovery probabilities in the following types of medical malpractice case:

Foreign Object Left in Body 66%
Postsurgical Infection 43%
Catheterization 39%
Failed Sterilization 35%
Lack of Informed Consent 25%

Certainly, our Maryland malpractice lawyers have seen a rise in the number of complaints of post surgery infections, usually against hospitals involving staph infections. I'm also surprised at how low the likelihood of recovery is in informed consent cases. I have to think that this figure is deflated by jurisdictions that require look at informed consent from the perspective of what a prudent doctor would say to a patient receiving similar medical treatment as opposed to what a patient would expect.

The New York Times reports today that badly behaved doctors, specifically arrogant, abusive and disruptive behavior, can contribute to low morale, stress and high turnover among hospital staff and can lead to medical malpractice. A recent survey of medical providers found that an alarming percentage of workers believed that disruptive behavior could lead to medical malpractice.

Certainly, this is true and systematic changes can be made to improve what is tolerated in a hosptial setting. But doctors do not have monopoly on arrogance and abusive behavior as many who have worked for some Maryland malpractice lawyers can attest.

Hospital infections are becoming more of an issue both within hospitals and in the media in recent years. The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta makes clear the reason: infections at hospitals cause 90,000 deaths in the U.S. every year. Infections result in an estimated 205,000 additional hospital days for infected patients and $2 billion in hospital charges.

Most infections are not the result of hospital malpractice. But consider these facts. In Central New York, University Hospital had, according to one study, an infection rate of 0.669 percent. Other New York Hospitals had lower rates: St. Joseph's and Crouse had infection rates of 0.405 percent and 0.364 percent, respectively. But Community General's infection rate was 0.017 percent and Oswego’s rate was absolutely zero.

Now, hospital quality data is not standardized and there are different reports that measure hospitals in different ways. But can this degree of variance in hospital infection rates be the product of mere probability or the way the hospitals report the data? I don't think so.

Many states, most notably Pennsylvania, are taking great steps to collect and report data on hospital-acquired infections. These are just steps in the right direction. Hospital patients have a right to know whether a hospital in which they might receive care and treatment is diligent in the prevention of hospital-acquired infections.