Lawsuits? Protect patients ? HAHAHAHAHAHA!! You willing to sell what you’re smoking?

Hospitals will be unable to find physicians to see these kids. The results of cases like this hurt more children then they help. There is the potential that more children will go blind from lack of available screenings.

Those that need screenings can be transfered to facilities providing this care. This has its own set of problems. Very sick children who need to be screened will suffer other life threatening complications during the transfer.

Ultimately the kids who these types of suits are trying to “protect” will be the ones that suffer.

It is no surprise that getting a pediatric ophthalmologist or retina specialist to cover a NICU can be difficult; it is a substantial liability. Worse, the prognosis for ROP even when treated with laser at threshhold is often not very good (but better than not treated, of course) , and there is usually significant longstanding visual risk.

The facts aren’t cited. We can only guess whether the parents understood instructions for urgent followup after discharge. Whether they were given instructions but forgot or disregarded them, or whether they didn’t understand the consequences of delay or whether they were just never told isn’t said.

I think awards like this will be damaging to hospital staffs and will result in higher malpractice premiums for doctors who provide this kind of care, which will result in reduced access, as much of this kind of care–despite being in hospital and very time-consuming–is paid by Medicaid and of course often not at all.

If I were doing this kind of consultation, I would send certified and receipted letters of instruction to each parent prior to hospital discharge basically teling them that if they didn’t follow up as instructed the consequences could be irreversible blindness for their child. I would never rely on a hospital staff member, NICU nurse or attending neonatologist to convey that message. The problem comes when the child is discharged against your advice or without your knowledge. The problem is that even with demonstration of clear warning, or of derelict or irresponsible parents, the plight of a blind child is often too much to ask a jury to weigh dispassionately. They see a claim as a substitute for disability payment and don’t regard how an outsized award is unfair to the defendant or how those awards will affect access to care in their communities.