Requiring surgeries to be videotaped

im sort of surprised it doesnt happen more often.. with the east of video taping these days and also of data storage, im surprised more significant medical events arent documented. in cases where the patient needed more surgery several years later . it might be helpful to review the previous surgery. like a more detailed operative report. it might make certain operative details more clear.

wasteful? how? it only takes up memory on a computer. its not like you are using old time film. just put a camera in the OR. i bet thats where things will eventually go. at least here in america. i can only see it being wasteful if you have to spend TIME to review it. (obviously it will keep someone busy).

As a robotic surgeon who often videos surgeries, this proposed law is outrageous. It wants audio and video to be required.

I will have to watch every word I say, tone I use, and every little blood vessel.

It would put an undue strain on myself as well as my whole operating room team and likely lead to more errors, not less.

Id like to see lawyers have a video and audio recorder following them around the courtroom and watching them at work in the office to see exactly what they are doing in their bill-able hours.

Recording every surgery in anticipation of the legal process seems wasteful. Instead we should just empanel a jury to watch live; they can start the voting process with skin incision and unanimous decisions could be reached at any time before the conclusion of the surgery. It would even be possible for more than one case to be decided if the procedure was lengthy or difficult enough.

bravo Gasman. that made me chuckle.

I don’t see videotaping as such a dreadful thing in principle, but then I’m an irresponsible, naive health-care consumer in the dreaded socialised-medicine republic of Canada (where completely coincidentally, we don’t have nearly the litigious relationship with medicine that our neighbours to the south do).

When the meter reader comes to read our electicity meters, I go down in the basement with her. I don’t actually think she’s going to steal anything – I am certain the novelty of other people’s screwdrivers and scrap wood wears off within the first couple of weeks on the job – but it’s reassuring to her. If I’m watching her read my meters, then I can’t call Hydro later and accuse her of pilfering. So she can feel ok about the visit to my basement: she knows for sure there will be no repercussions later on.

I understand there are differences in practice between meter-reading and surgery. I can tell if my meter-reader is pocketing something, but it would be nearly impossible for me to judge whether my surgery was being conducted improperly. That’s one. Another is that meter-reading is fairly straightforward. The most likely mistake for a meter-reader to make is kicking scrap wood on the floor. She wears steel-toed boots, so it’s not a big deal for her, and it’s of no consequence to the reading of the meter. But in a long and complicated surgery I imagine that many little mistakes are made that ultimately have little consequence to the patient. If an antagonistic lawyer were to magically have access to all the little mistakes, I would be unable to distinguish between the mistakes that were truly of no consequence and those that resulted in harm.

So while in practice I think videotaping is unlikely to help, or help much, I don’t see the proposal as being inherently antagonistic. If it could be implemented accurately and fairly (and I agree, it probably couldn’t), videotaping should have the effect of protecting surgeons from frivolous, malicious or misguided malpractice suits. I don’t see the need to raise a big fuss about barriers between patients and doctors, or lack of trust, or antagonism. A practical discussion of the barriers to implementation should do.

I think it’s hard for the layperson to appreciate: the impact of, in effect, having someone looking over your shoulder judging every single move you make. Surely there are comparables in other aspects of life? A painter? A writer? A mechanic?

Little things happen in surgery which are of no consequence but which can look very serious when blown up on a screen. A simple bleeder here or there. Pulling out a suture and having to replace it. If it were possible to have it all seen in context, I’d not object. But any lawyer worth his contingency fee could make it look horrible, don’t you think? In training, an attending told me of a small incisional infection a patient had had which eventually healed with no consequence. He went to a lawyer early on, had a photograph taken, which the lawyer had blown up into a huge gooey poster and placed it before a jury. After puking, they awarded the man 25K. In those days, that was a lot of money. My point is this: being darn close to human, most surgeons would feel pressure under the circumstances, and that could lead to making decisions for the camera as opposed to for the patient. If I were a patient I’d prefer to have my surgeon single-minded when working. But that’s just me.