A patient dies after doctors fail to communicate in the operating room

by Jerry I. Meyers, Esq.

Communication is essential between health care providers but sometimes communication fails because of the arrogance or carelessness of the persons involved in the needed medical communication.

Several years ago, a female client about to enjoy an important anniversary was admitted to a University affiliated hospital for the purpose of having a colostomy wound debrided.

This was to be a one-day inpatient hospital procedure and was associated with little to no risk. As a part of the procedure, however, a prophylactic antibiotic was to be administered.

Unfortunately in this particular case, when the antibiotic (Cefotan) was administered the patient suffered a sudden cardiac arrest. This cardiac arrest resulted from a rare but well-known allergic reaction to this antibiotic. The patient was successfully resuscitated. No harm done. A substitute antibiotic was employed uneventfully. Because the patient suffered a cardiac arrest before her surgery could be performed, the procedure was rescheduled to occur approximately thirty days later with the same surgeon who had earlier been involved. The anesthesiologist, who had saved this patient’s life earlier, recorded in the order sheet, in the progress notes and even in a typed signed note provided to the patient, notice of what had happened to her, “You are allergic to the drug Cefotan. Don’t allow this drug to be administered to you. You may die.”

Who could have done more to protect the patient from a similar future occurrence?

The patient showed her surgeon the note her anesthesiologist had provided and, rather than openly disagreeing with the note, he simply said he was aware of that.

Thirty days after the patient’s original cardiac arrest she was readmitted for a repeat of the same procedure that was originally planned. The patient had ugly premonitions about what might happen which she shared with the admitting nurse. The admitting nurse was sufficiently concerned that she assured the patient that an anesthesiologist would attend the patient before the patient went to the operating room to ease the patient’s mind. The anesthesiologist who came to the patient’s side assured the patient that everyone knew she was allergic to Cefotan. She said reassuringly, ”You will not receive Cefotan.” Were she to receive Cefotan she might die. The wristband the patient was wearing revealed the presence of this allergy as did numerous references in the hospital records that no one could possibly miss. The anesthesiologist promised the patient, “You will not receive this drug.”

Notwithstanding all these assurances the patient went to the operating room for her one-day procedure and as the same anesthesiologist entered the room who had just offered such reassuring promises, this anesthesiologist observed the patient was about to receive a prophylactic antibiotic intravenously. The anesthesiologist promptly inquired as to the type of antibiotic and was told, “Well it’s Cefotan.” The anesthesiologist replied, “But she is allergic to that.”

Amazingly, the surgeon present, who was the same surgeon present at the time of the original cardiac arrest, insisted that the patient get the prophylactic antibiotic and the anesthesiologist present and the nurse anesthetist present lacked the courage to refuse. Instead the anesthesiologist said to the nurse anesthetist, “Well, make sure you don’t give to much.” The drug was administered. The patient died.

These facts are taken from a real case. Agreements and legal restrictions prevent the identification of names and places or even institutions.

The case was concluded in such a way that all involved were aware of their involvement and what they did, how it contributed to the patient’s death and what should have been done otherwise. It is not always possible to prevent malpractice before it occurs but it is certainly essential to see to it when it has occurred with unfortunate results that those involved are made aware of what they have done and with what consequence. It is the least we can do to assure that it is less likely the catastrophe be repeated.

Jerry Meyers is the founding partner of the law firm of Meyers Giuffre Evans & Schwarzwaelder.

Submit a guest post and be heard.

email

  • Susan Carll

    The arrogance of the surgeon and the cowardice of the anesthesiologist and the nurse are absolutely stunning!

    “First do no harm.”

  • Sarah G

    What reason or justification did the surgeon give for ordering this antibiotic again? It sounds like communication was just fine on all fronts.

  • http://www.erstories.net ERP

    That is absoultely horrific and completely indefensible. He or She needs to lose his or her license pronto.

  • Jeremy, RN

    Not surprising. I WORK in one of the world’s “best” hospitals and have SEEN and EXPERIENCED negligence on this level. Each patient needs to be a huge advocate for themselves or have someone there that knows half of what’s going on. This is just egregious, it makes me sick to my stomach these people may be still practicing, AND involved in MY CARE!

  • ninguem

    Same here. Don’t have all the details, but it sure sounds like the allergy history was clearly communicated. The “cowardice” of the anesthesiologist and nurse……..don’t know. That’s often a cultural thing. They’re big targets for getting labeled “disruptive” and summarily fired, with career ruined……just for trying to do the right thing.

  • DocbLawg

    … furthermore, isn’t the surgeon fully responsible for what goes on in his operating room under the “captain of the ship” doctrine? Glad that surgeon wasn’t my client.

  • Rezmed09

    “It is not always possible to prevent malpractice before it occurs but it is certainly essential to see to it when it has occurred with unfortunate results that those involved are made aware of what they have done and with what consequence.”

    A tragic case that makes all physicians cringe and all malpractice attorneys salivate (and cringe). Let’s be clear, this was bad. But also we must acknowledge that there are often two sides to every story. I cannot imagine what that other side was, but sometimes there are other explanations… Cefotetan was probably not the only drug given the first time around. Again, I am not trying to weasel out of saying this was bad medicine, but there is often more to any case than an attorney’s perspective.

    Finally, what is the point of this tragic story told by an attorney? Is it that a $5 million dollar settlement is going to help? A $2million jackpot for the attorney is necessary? Is it that these greedy b*****rd OR docs should be punished? Or is it that we need to do a better job of preventing these types of med errors. For now, I suspect all of these approaches are part of American medicine – for better or worse.

    In the 20 years these errors will mostly disappear with general acceptance of an easy to use EHR-integtrated medication control/dispensing system. Right now these systems are too costly, too clunky and in some ways also dangerous for some hospitals. Maybe it would cost $2-5 million to implement that system into a hospital… Do these amounts sound familiar?

  • me

    i guess in the interest of fairness, it’s a good thing that people on the other side of the argument are given a voice on this website. i would encourage the trial lawyers that were all over the post from that surgeon who put a screwdriver in someone’s spine to be just as enthusiastic in pointing that we only have one side of the story here. i believe the line was “we only have 1/10 of the facts.”

  • http://www.blog.greatzs.com ZMD

    What kind of anesthesiologist is this? Doesn’t the surgical team know any other antibiotics besides cefotetan? And no, the surgeon is no longer the “captain of the ship.” That doctrine went out in the 70′s. Now the OR is a team, where everybody has specific responsibilities to perform, especially looking out for the welfare of the patient.

  • SarahW

    The “screwdriver surgeon” is a poor example of “the other side”. His “side” consisted of lame excuses, willful ignorance of priniciples of liability, and probably a few personal distortions of actual events.

    THE WOMAN IN THIS STORY DIED. Her life became worth what actuarial tables and income charts said. Wrongful death claims are the cheap ones, especially when the patient doesn’t consciously experience a period of pain and suffering.

    But yes, the money does make it better. The money punishes short-cuts taken for a surgeons convenience, when a patient is put in harms’ way. The money compensates her estate and her family for the ecomomic losses and other damages.

    BTW, this patient specifically refused a treatment. The administration of the drug was a battery, a tort, and it cost her nothing less than her life.

    If saving money within the medical system is a top goal, don’t commit battery. Don’t administer a drug when there is a history of complications and the patient has refused it.
    Or whatever happens from use of that drug is your responsibility. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

    I am not in favor of any change in the law that would protect this kind of negligence and remove fault from those responsible.

  • http://www.meyersmedmal.com jimeyers

    Yes propofol, in addition to cefotetan was also given a moment before the original allergic reaction. The surgeon argued with the anesthesiologist who conducted the successful rresusitation about whether cefotetan was the resposible agent. The surgeon wrongly believed that a prior administration of an antibiotic from the same class as cefotetan eliminated cefotetan as the culprit. Notwithstanding his belief he permitted the house staff to prescribe a differrent antibiotic for the remainder of the patient’s original hospitalization.

    Though questioned extensively, the surgeon had no explanation for why he insisted that cefotetan be administered to this patient again. He did go on to say that he believed the original alergic reaction was caused by the iodine in the betadine which was applied topically at both surgeries.

    Of further interest, there was no discussion of this case at any morbidity/mortality conference. If a lawsuit had not been pursued the entire matter would have remained secret.

    Finally, during the course of the litigation the entire product of discovery was made available to the apprpriate licensing board. In addition the anesthesiologist who successfully resusitated the patient at the time of the original allergic reaction made himself available to the board to assist in the boards investigation. He was never questioned by the board that went on to exonerate the surgeon based upon the expert opinion of an allergist who opined the surgeon had the discretion to choose the drugs to be administered to his patient.

    Sometimes there just is no other side of the story.

  • Bradford

    There is no captain of the ship in the OR. Each individual member of the TEAM is responsible for their actions. The Anesthesiologist and/or Nurse Anesthetist should have said NO in this case. There was no breakdown of communication here…they knowingly did it.

  • http://www.drjshousecalls.blogspot.com Dr. Mary Johnson

    There does not seem to me to be a “failure to communicate” in this story.

    Just arrogance and cowardice.

    With regards to the anesthesiologist, as others in this thread have pointed out, despite all the notions of the “team” approach, surgeons still rule in the OR, and other specialists that might challenge them fear being labeled “disruptive”.

    Would not have a clue as to why (Why yes. That was sarcasm.)

  • Tellie

    A dear friend of mine is a nurse. Whenever she or any of her RN-NP friends are hospitalized, they do round-the-clock rotations so none of them is ever left alone in a hospital. They’ve explained that they see way too much of this stuff to take chances with their own treatment.

  • Classof65

    This is appalling! And, of course, all doctors cover up for each other. Meanwhile you wonder why we believe that our healthcare system is “broken.” And you wonder why your malpractice insurance is so high… and you wonder why we don’t really want tort reform. Re-read your own blog and then tell me I’m wrong.
    Classof65

  • http://www.drjshousecalls.blogspot.com Dr. Mary Johnson

    Classof65, I’m in this blogosphere because all doctors do NOT cover up for one another.

    I certainly didn’t – and do not.

    But after eleven years of a brutal professional pummeling for doing the right thing by a patient while I was a no-name nobody in public service (as every advocacy and regulatory and law enforcement agency everywhere looked the other way – and still looks the other way), I certainly understand fear. I DO NOT excuse what the anesthesiologist did. I think it was beyond cowardly – a total betrayal of the Oath.

    But I do understand it all too well.

    And if YOU/others want to change that environment – the environment and mindset that might prompt a doctor to take a dive rather than make a stand, then as this system gets reformed, people like you are going to have start listening to people like me – and doing something to bring these stories to the forefront of debate – and doing something about them.

  • me

    all i’m saying is that none of us were there at the hospital or the subsequent trial and as such don’t know what really happened.
    every time a doc tries to tell their side of the story that’s all you hear from lawyers and other knee-jerk anti-docs. why not make the same comment no matter who’s telling the story?

  • DocbLawg

    ZMD – Actually, many states still follow the “captain of the ship” doctrine including the state where I practice so it isn’t obsolete except for maybe where you and Bradford (OR) practice. In my state the surgeon would be primarily responsible with the Plaintiffs’ attorney likely squeezing nuisance value settlements out of the hospital and the anesthesiologist. Furthermore, based upon the facts here, there may be an intentional aspect of the case such that the surgeon acted in reckless disregard which could subject the surgeon to punitive damages not covered by professional liability insurance, loss of medical license, and possibly criminal charges – again, that is just my state.

  • Matt

    ” why not make the same comment no matter who’s telling the story?”

    I think it’s dangerous to reach conclusions about policy issues solely on one side’s story in any litigation, and even more dangerous to rely upon newspaper articles to make broad decisions. However, one can certainly say that the story told, IF TRUE, leads you to X or Y conclusion. You just might want to keep your skeptic hat on before you start basing broad policy statements (“we need more tort reform” or “we need to criminally punish doctors”) based on that.

    With regard to the screwdriver story, there was a significant amount of information telling both sides. It wasn’t the typical two week trial distilled into 400 words in a newspaper or blog post.

  • alex

    I have no idea why everyone immediately leaps to taking this story at face value. The author is a malpractice attorney presenting an argument on a strongly anti-malpractice blog. If you read the story and your thought was “Wow, based on this description NO SANE HUMAN BEING would ever perform this series of actions”, _perhaps_ applying Occam’s razor would suggest that it is likelier that Mr. Meyers is presenting a slightly skewed view of events. At least with screwdriver guy there was actual media confirmation of some facts. If we take Mr. Meyers presentation of the case as is, then we can conclude that this woman was basically indefensibly killed and yet the board of medicine and (more importantly) media saw no particular importance to it. Again, applying Occam’s razor…

  • ninguem

    The Brits have these Confidential Enquiry programs to investigate perioperative deaths, peripartum deaths, etc.

    They are commissioned by the Crown, and are immune from fishing expeditions by lawyers. As such, the people involved can let their hair down, tell blunt truths, speculate, and from this, one can often learn what really happened, or patterns that can lead to disasters.

    Lacking royalty, the best we can do in the USA are the closed-claims inquiries. The fact that the case was closed, facts aired, I guess not much risk of that fishing expedition.

    Good point, the propofol could have caused the allergic reaction. Don’t know the exact timeline to know if propofol could be implicated in this case.

    I must admit, I get many, many, many patients told they have “allergy” to local anesthetic, when the reaction in question was far more likely vasovagal, or secondary to the pharmacologic effect of epinephrine often in the local anesthetic solution, or a rapid uptake from injecting a large volume in a vascular area, etc.

    Medical school days, rotated with a doc who’d been around the block with that sort of thing. We had a patient claiming a local anesthetic allergy (“all the ‘caine drugs”). The doc talked the patient into a controlled “experiment”. The doc did a subcutaneous injection of preservative-free saline 1-cc and the patient had the same reaction. “See I told you I was allergic to ‘caine anesthetics”.

    Probably not fair to just shoot from the hip and say the patient is allergic to “X” and avoid it for a lifetime. Though I must admit, I’d have wanted allergy evaluation before giving it again………

  • SarahW

    Missing from any discussion is the patient’s right to refuse a treatment. A physician who feels put out by this has rights of his own, but not the right to administer the treatment.

  • Chris

    “And, of course, all doctors cover up for each other.”

    Which is why this story is posted on a highly-read physician’s blog? You might want to re-think that, Classof65.

  • Primary Care Internist

    Is it necessarily so wrong, and career-ruining malpractice, to give a drug that in your professional judgment the benefits outweigh the risks, that happens to cause a bad outcome?

    Lots of people claim to have a penicillin allergy, yet when they have a pneumonia, often rocephin is a reasonable and safely-administered choice, despite a theoretical 10% cross-reactivity with penicillins.

    Should every time a physician errs on the side of giving the better drug, at the small unpredictable risk of causing a bad outcome, be deemed malpractice? If so, then we should find a wonder-drug for each condition, and only use that, all the time. Anything else should be punishable by firing squad (forget about a silly malpractice suti!)

  • Mike

    The patient explicitly refused treatment, multiple times if this recounting of events is correct. Is there, then, any other side of this story?

  • http://www.nourishourselves.blogspot.com Marie

    Oy. I’m loving reading these articles weeks before I have surgery myself. lol

    I am a nurse and it is indeed extremely difficult to stand up to a powerful physician. I can only imagine what went through the heads of the nurse and the anesthetist. But I know what would have gone through mine.

    I would have thought about losing my job (and I am a widow with four children, a lot to consider there). But within seconds I would have realized losing my job would be nothing compared to having to live with the fact that I was complicit in a murder. Because this was nothing less than murder.

    Although I believe they were wrong, my heart aches for the two who could have stopped it. That is a terrible burden to carry.

  • http://www.nourishourselves.blogspot.com Marie

    OK, Alex, having just (belatedly) read your comment, I will amend mine to begin “If this story is true and accurate as presented…”

    However even if it is not, one could argue it makes a good academic hypothetical situation. In which case my comment would be the same.

  • http://www.meyersmedmal.com jimeyers

    The comments to my article have been rather polarizing. That was not the intent of my message. On this blog the subject of medical malpractice seems to routinely have this effect.
    Since the facts of the case discussed have been lost in this dialogue a brief repetition of certain facts may be useful to some.

    First, this was a prescription of a prophylactic antibiotic so there was no need to balance carefully to find another appropriate medication.

    This patient actually suffered a cardiac arrest from this initial administration. There had only been two drugs administered and if one disregards the e3dvidence which actually made the cefotetan more likely, certainly the surgeon was aware that there wqas at the very least a 50% chance that a second administration of the drug could be fatal.

    Once a drug has caused an anaphylactic reaction the allergy is no longer dose related. There was no safety in giving a little.
    The anesthesiologist present for the second administration of the drug admitted to being aware of that principle.

    Some of the commentators were incredulous that a licensing board would exonerate a physician if the facts I related were true. It is undoubted the case that there are licensing boards who would have acted otherwise. The failure to take such actions virtually irrespective of circumstance is commonplace for the board in question.

    Those who want media verification of the facts forgot that in the state where this matter occurred, confidentiality is required for all settlements.

    Finally, The surviving husband, didn’t know what to do. He didn’t want money he did want the surgeon suspended. After everything he learned because of my investigation and believing that the filing of the case and investigation made it less likely that the catastrophe would be repeated, a settlement was reached which was of sufficient magnitude as assurred the matter had been taken seriously.

    I was paid a portion of the settlement proceeds as my contingent fee. Before you decide whether the fee was earned you would have to know facts I cannot share with you. I can tell you that the settlement occurred just before trial and that the delay was due to the obstinence of the surgeon.

  • edita falco

    i have read with great interest about that case
    .Am a doctor working on patient safety and are now studying about what induces a doctor to make a wrong decision. Some cases are just arrogance and disrecpect as violate very well know procedures , others are just difficult to undertand We got a case were tha anestesiologist failed to monitor the patiene it was a very imprudent guy that had many accidentes before he got a suspension You find people like that that must be excluded from practice..
    but some times good people make incredible decisions and i wonder why
    was such this case? or a crazy guy like my anesthesiologist?
    thank you
    what was the the surgeon `s explanation ?

  • http://www.meyersmedmal.com jimeyers

    I can’t read the surgeon’s mind. I have in my article and subsdequent comments offerred every explanation given. Including qestioning whether an anaphylactic reaction had occured. The nature of the reaction was truely not in question. All the indicia of such a reaction were recorded in the records by the anesthesiologist who resusitated the patient. I have an an educated guess, that the surgeon was so upset that the anesthesiologist questioned the surgeon’s conclusions that the surgeon lost track in his reasoning of the consequences to the patient. When he was questioned again by a different anesthesiologist just before the second administration of the drug, he reacted similarly. I gather that the timidity of the anesthesia, tough inexcusable, is nevertheless a reality in hospitals where surgeons wield unrestrained power. This case simply represents an extreme example.

  • Richard Geier

    This is a classic case of incentives driving behavior. Most surgical centers are setup with “eat what you kill” contracts for anesthesiologists. This creates an incentive to keep surgeons happy because otherwise the anesthesiologist will not be requested for cases. Even worse, the anesthesiologist will be black listed by the surgeon’s colleagues as being obstructed and forced to leave the pracitce. It is very typical to bend the rules of safety to accomodate surgeons for these reasons but rarely is there a frank breach as in this case. I can only imagine that the anesthesiolgoists was worried about his/her job. This is as much a system problem as it is a people problem.

Trending