Why Are Doctors Sued for Malpractice?

What medical errors result in the most medical malpractice payments? Birth injuries? Surgical errors? Medication mistakes? According to a recent study cited by the New York Times, errors in diagnosis account for 28.6 percent of malpractice payments, making it the most common cause of claims paid against health care practitioners. Errors related to treatment came in second, and errors related to surgery were third. All other errors combined- including medication, monitoring, anesthesia, and obstetrics- accounted for only 20 percent of malpractice payments.

Diagnostic Errors are Common and Deadly

Misdiagnosis resulted in over 100,000 medical malpractice payments from 1986 to 2010. Diagnostic errors were cited as the cause of 44 percent of all deaths and 33.8 percent of all disabilities in cases resulting in malpractice payments.

The study analyzed 350,706 paid medical malpractice claims over a 25 year period from 1986 to 2010. The study concluded that, "Among malpractice claims, diagnostic errors appear to be the most common, most costly and most dangerous of medical mistakes. We found roughly equal numbers of lethal and non-lethal errors in our analysis, suggesting that the public health burden of diagnostic errors could be twice that previously estimated. Healthcare stakeholders should consider diagnostic safety a critical health policy issue."

For further information, see the study published in BMJ Quality and Safety.

Experienced Colorado Medical Malpractice Lawyers Can Help You

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a misdiagnosis or other medical error, contact the Colorado medical malpractice attorneys at Paulsen & Armitage, LLC for a free case evaluation and immediate assistance.

Patient Reporting of Medical Mistakes

In September, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration seeks to implement a new system for patients to report mistakes and unsafe practices by doctors, hospitals, pharmacists and others who provide medical care and treatment. The proposed system is at least partially in response to findings that medical mistakes often go unreported. Federal officials believe that patients have potentially useful information that could expose reasons for errors that cause injuries, infections and tens of thousands of deaths each year.

As explained by the director of the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Carolyn M. Clancy, "Currently there is no mechanism for consumers to report information about patient safety events." She goes on to assert, "Patient reports could complement and enhance reports from providers and thus produce a more complete and accurate understanding of the prevalence and characteristics [of medical mistakes]."

How the proposed reporting system would work

If the proposed system is cleared by the White House, questionnaires would be available in hospitals and doctors' offices for patients to report mistakes and errors made by health care providers. Patients and their relatives could also report medical errors through a website and in telephone interviews.

For each incident, the government wants to know details of the event, including any harm that occurred, and whether the patient reported the event and to whom. The questionnaire will also ask why the mistake happened and list possible reasons, such as:

• A doctor, nurse or other health care provider did not communicate well with the patient or the patient's family.
• Health care providers failed to work together.
• Health care providers were not aware of care received somewhere else.
• A health care provider did not respect the patient's race, language or culture.
• A health care provider did not seem to care about the patient.
• A health care provider was too busy.
• A health care provider did not spend enough time with the patient.

According to the NY Times article, the patient reports would be analyzed by researchers from the RAND Corporation and the ECRI Institute, a nonprofit organization that has been investigating medical errors for four decades.

Talk to an Experienced Malpractice Attorney if You Have Experienced a Medical Mistake

If a health care provider's mistake harmed you or a loved one during or after undergoing a medical procedure, you may be entitled to compensation for your damages. In Colorado, contact the Denver law firm of Paulsen & Armitage, LLC for a free initial consultation to discuss a potential medical malpractice claim in your case.

Filthy Surgical Instruments in the O.R. are Dangerous to Patients

Recent advancements in technology permit surgeons to operate on patients with less trauma than ever before. It's called minimally invasive surgery and it has taken the medical world by storm. As compared to traditional surgery, it requires a smaller incision, less recovery time, and reportedly fewer side effects. The catalyst for minimally invasive surgery is the endoscope—a narrow instrument with a light and camera that sends an image to a screen watched by surgeons. Instead of making large, traumatic incisions, surgeons need only small openings for the endoscope to see inside the body.

But the very characteristic which makes this procedure so desirable is also its undoing. Every tool used in an operation must undergo a thorough cleaning and sterilization by hospital staff before it can be used again. A proper cleaning is critical to ensuring infection and disease is not spread from one patient to the next. Traditional surgical tools were relatively simple to clean, but the narrow devices used in minimally invasive surgery today are much more complicated.

Shocking Findings Revealed

A 2009 investigation by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) revealed widespread failure to properly clean at least one minimally invasive surgical device—the anthroscopic shaver. This device is used in certain orthopedic surgical procedures to shave away bone and tissue. Upon close inspection of several purportedly clean shavers, investigators discovered actual pieces of human bone and tissue lodged in hard to reach places within many devices. Each time these filthy devices are used patients are exposed to dangerous disease and infection.

For one patient in Texas, the risk of exposure was all too real. John Harrison entered the hospital expecting to undergo routine rotator cuff surgery on his right shoulder. One operation and seven follow-up procedures later, John can barely lift his arm. It is believed an improperly cleaned device used by John's surgeons infected him. When he returned to the hospital for an emergency checkup, doctors found the infection had deteriorated part of his shoulder bone and rotator cuff, and allowed the metal hardware inside to pull loose.

The blame for failing to clean minimally invasive surgical instruments lies with hospitals. Staff employed by hospitals to sterilize these devices are typically underpaid and overworked. The demand for quickly cleaned tools is unprecedented. It is no wonder so many instruments are found to contain remnants from previous operations. It raises serious concerns about the procedures in place for the proper reprocessing of reusable minimally invasive instruments in Colorado hospitals.

Consult Trusted Medical Malpractice Lawyers

If you or a loved one is exposed to terrible disease or infection, it may be the result of improperly cleaned surgical instruments used in your procedure. Contact the personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys at Paulsen & Armitage, LLC to learn more.

Informed Consent & The Duty to Disclose Treatment Risks

On August 7, 2012, the Public Library of Science (PLOS) Medicine Journal released a study focused on medical malpractice lawsuits arising from doctor-patient disagreements regarding informed consent. With informed consent, doctors are expected to advise and empower patients by sharing information that may affect treatment decisions, including risks of adverse outcomes.

The study found, however, that "doctors, especially surgeons, are often unsure which clinical risks they should disclose and discuss with patients before treatment." The authors go on to assert that while most informed consent disputes involve disagreements about who said what and when (rather than arguments over whether a particular risk should have been disclosed), doctors may "routinely underestimate the importance of a small set of risks that vex patients."

Specific Study Findings

Of the nearly 10,000 malpractice claims and health care complaints sampled in the study, the researchers identified 481 disputes over informed consent, 45 of which were "disputed duty cases," defined by researchers as "disagreements between patients and doctors over whether a particular clinical risk should have been disclosed before treatment." Two-thirds of the disputed duty cases involved surgical procedures, and the majority (38 out of 45) involved five adverse outcomes:

• The need for further surgery
• Poor cosmetic result
• Impaired vision or hearing
• Chronic pain
• Infertility or sexual dysfunction

The authors reported that the most common justifications doctors gave for non-disclosure were that the risk was too rare to warrant discussion or the specific risk was covered by a more general risk that was discussed.

Nine in ten of the disputes studied centered on factual disagreements, or arguments over who said what and when. In these cases, the documentation of consent discussions leading up to medical treatment is especially important because written accounts may show whether and when an operative risk was discussed.

The study concludes, "Improved understanding of [informed consent disagreements] helps to spotlight gaps between what patients want to hear and what doctors perceive patients want - or should want - to hear. It may also be useful information for doctors eager to avoid medico-legal disputes."

Speak to an Experienced Colorado Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you feel that a medical provider did not properly explain or inform you of medical treatment options and risks, an experienced medical malpractice lawyer can help determine if you may be entitled to compensation for harms related to the oversight or mistake. In Colorado, contact the Denver law firm of Paulsen & Armitage, LLC for a free and informative attorney consultation regarding informed consent.

FDA Reviews Safety of Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

For years, patients have reported debilitating pain and swelling caused by metal-on-metal hip implants, and in many cases, metal implants have been removed because of failures. On June 27 and 28, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened the Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee to seek the latest expert scientific and clinical opinion on the risks and benefits of metal-on-metal hip systems, including:

• Failure rates and modes
• Metal ion testing
• Imaging methods
• Local and systematic complications
• Patient risk factors
• Considerations for follow-up after surgery

Most of the problems associated with metal-on-metal hip implants involve the release of metal ions into the body as the metal parts of the implant rub together. Reactions to the metal particles can cause soft tissue damage, inflammation, bone loss, and other complications that compromise the implant, eventually necessitating its early replacement or repair. Replacement surgeries can be very hard on patients, especially if a person's joint has been further deteriorated as a result of the failed implant.

Once the FDA announced its plan to scrutinize the safety of metal-on-metal hip implants, CBS News spoke with people who sustained implant-related complications. One woman, who had both hips replaced with Johnson & Johnson ASR all-metal implants in 2007 and 2008, had her implants removed in 2011 due to increasing pain and elevated metal levels in her blood. Because of early failures and research showing metal ions leaching into the bloodstream at a high rate, Johnson & Johnson had already recalled the ASR implants in 2010.

Many people are frustrated because most prosthetic devices, like hip implants, do not undergo rigorous safety testing before being put on the market. Rather, the FDA's fast-track clearing program waives clinical testing requirements for devices that appear similar to others already in use. Almost all metal-on-metal hip implants were approved without new safety testing because plastic and ceramic hip replacements have been available since the 1950s. As one man put it, "[They] used my wife as a lab rat, along with 500,000 [other] people."

Contact Concerned Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Denver, Colorado

If you live in the Denver area and you or a loved one has suffered complications after a metal-on-metal hip replacement surgery, or if your hip replacement has required early repair, please contact the experienced Colorado medical malpractice lawyers at Paulsen & Armitage, LLC. We can help you recover the compensation you deserve from the manufacturers and distributors of dangerous medical devices.

Nonprofit Organization Rates the Safety of Hospitals around the Country

On June 6, The Leapfrog Group, a nonprofit organization focused on hospital safety and transparency, released a hospital safety ratings list of United States hospitals, which is the first of its kind. As reported by ABC News and MSNBC, each surveyed hospital received a grade of A, B, C, D, or F based on data reporting medical errors, medication errors, patient injuries, and infections that occurred during patient hospital stays. Of the 2,652 hospitals issued a Hospital Safety Score, 729 received an "A" grade, 679 received a "B" grade, and 1,243 received a "C" grade or below. The names of the hospitals receiving "D" and "F" grades have not yet been released.
According to The Leapfrog Group press release that accompanied publication of the safety scores, hospital errors result in roughly 400 deaths each day. The statement goes on to explain that recent studies have also determined that one in four Medicare patients will leave a hospital with a potentially fatal issue they did not have prior to hospitalization. In similarly disturbing findings, one medication error occurs per day for each hospitalized patient, and more than 180,000 Americans die each year from hospital accidents, infections, and errors.

Colorado Hospital Safety Scores

In the Denver area, hospitals generally received good ratings with Denver Health Medical Center, Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, and Exempla St. Joseph Hospital all receiving "B" ratings, and Rose Medical Center and Centura Health-Porter Adventist Hospital receiving "A" ratings. In Boulder, however, the only hospital rated, the Boulder Community Hospital, received a "C" rating, and in Colorado Springs, both hospitals rated, the Memorial Health System and Centura Health-Penrose St. Francis Health Services, received "C" ratings.
The Leapfrog Group urges patients to consider hospital ratings before choosing a hospital, for while your hospital may boast the latest equipment and excellent specialists, failure to maintain basic safety practices, such as hand-washing, computerized medication control, and nursing staff levels, could present serious health risks to you and your loved ones.

Talk to Experienced Medical Malpractice Attorneys in Denver, Colorado

If you believe that you or a loved one has been harmed as the result of a medical error or oversight in a Colorado hospital, please contact the experienced malpractice attorneys at Paulsen & Armitage, LLC in Denver for a free and informative consultation. We can help you determine if you have a valid claim against a hospital, doctor, or other health care provider.

Prostate Cancer Screenings: A Health Risk for Patients; a Legal Risk for Doctors?

Between the ages of 40 and 50, many men in the United States begin receiving a routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer as part of their yearly health exam. The purpose of the test is to detect the disease as early as possible, and if cancer cells are found, to begin treatment to stop the cancer's progression. Of the 20 million men who get a PSA test each year, most likely believe they are taking a proactive step to protect their health.

However, a recently formalized recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advises the elimination of routine PSA screenings in healthy men, regardless of age. The USPSTF's new guidelines wholly contradict the belief among both doctors and patients that all cancer screenings are always good for all people all the time.

Side Effects of PSA Tests

As reported by CBS News and ABC news, the primary reason that the USPSTF urges doctors to stop performing routine PSA screenings is that the tests lead to treatments that do more harm than good to patients. Specifically, "elevated PSA readings are not necessarily evidence of prostate cancer, and can lead to unnecessary prostate biopsy." The USPSTF said:

• PSA screenings are often unreliable, giving a falsely positive result 80% of the time.
• When biopsies reveal signs of prostate cancer cells, evidence shows that a large proportion of cells will never cause harm, even if left untreated.
• In older men, the disease typically progresses so slowly that they die of other causes.

According to the USPSTF, medical procedures arising from the tests can have serious side effects on patients, including heart attacks, strokes, and possibly death. Removal of the prostate, radiation, and other treatments for prostate cancer can also cause erectile dysfunction, complete impotence, urinary incontinence, and bowel damage.

Many doctors have issues with the USPSTF recommendation, from both health and legal perspectives. For example, most urologists maintain that PSA screenings do benefit patients and have prevented many men from developing advanced prostate cancer. And even doctors who agree with the new USPSTF recommendation may continue screenings for fear of medical malpractice liability. What if they stop screening a patient, and then he is diagnosed with cancer that could arguably have been detected sooner?

Contact an Experienced, Knowledgeable Medical Malpractice Attorney in Colorado

New research findings and government recommendations regularly affect patient treatment protocols, and may give rise to medical malpractice issues when doctors choose to follow or not follow such recommendations. If you believe a doctor's decision to perform or not perform a medical test negatively impacted your health, you should talk to an experienced malpractice lawyer about any claims for recovery you may have. In Colorado, contact Paulsen & Armitage, LLC for a free and informative attorney consultation.