After Death in the GI Suite, Patient's Family Sues CRNA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
These cases go to sh$t quickly. Especially in the orca fat population. To me those folks desat like a stone. The etco2 monitors help especially when I medically direct CRNA's (some) who think that chest movement is equivalent to ventilation. It would not be as big of a deal if it was me in there doing the case by myself. I know when the patient is breathing. I also think etco2 monitoring helps identify obstruction more quickly. I am not too computer savy otherwise i would post some links but look up the mac data in regards to etco2 monitoring. I am fighting to get these monitors in all of the endo rooms that we staff. I am not saying they are essential, but I do some with and some without and find that things seem to go smoother when I do them with.

What CRNA's do you work with that think chest movement=ventilation? I agree etCO2 is good to have, but not always available for that kind of procedure.
Not computer savy? I'm surprised you know about etCO2. Go to computer class for MD's

Members don't see this ad.
 
That's nothing. Our CRNAs tell me they're trained to be physicians.

They are not physicians, nor they want to be. Some physicians are definitely a good resource though.
 
Valerod,

Non-physicians are generally welcome on SDN, but not when they show up with minutes-old accounts just to practice thread necromancy and pot stirring.

Before you get all indignant now, remember that it's your own trollish nursing colleagues that have made moderator troll gun trigger fingers so twitchy.

Read, learn, socialize, contribute ... or begone.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Intimidated by GI? are you kidding? Yeah, the GI doc will intubate the patient if something goes wrong. There is obviously something wrong with your view of CRNA's. If a good CRNA does not think something is feasible they would simply not do it. I would not risk my license for an old GI fart.

Typical nurse response. "I would not risk my license...".
 
This is just an anecdotal incident.

how about this case?

Does this mean women should not be doing anesthesia? Or does this paint all anesthesiologists as just incompetent?

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-...sad-detour-through-stagnation-and-litigation/

so you're citing a local entertainment magazine with description of the incident provided by the plaintiffs' attorney?

looks like you're proving their point after all

i also like how a surgeon hired by the plaintiff comments on an appropriate anesthetic plan.
 
I have several major issues with this articles, but for now, I'd like to just highlight one particular comment, ""Had Dr. Abraham performed a proper preoperative evaluation of Mr. Springs," wrote Dr. Scott Groudine, professor of anesthesiology at Albany Medical Center and plaintiff expert witness, in a report filed with the court, "she would have learned that his airway would likely be difficult to secure. This knowledge should have led her to either (1) ensure that she would have additional equipment and support in place to secure his airway; or (2) choose an alternative to general anesthesia such as...regional anesthesia under which Mr. Springs could continue to breathe on his own."

Does anyone else have an issue with Abraham's contention #2? Namely, that regional always affords us the ability to summarily dismiss any airway concerns we previously had. I think it's foolish to: a) be concerned about someone's airway; b) plan for regional because of a); c)(MOST IMPORTANT)--assume that a plan for regional automatically reduces the risk of a) to zero. I think airways concerns that lead to regional are always justified but NOT if they lead to some false sense of security that the regional could fail, a Bier Block could go SERIOUSLY wrong, and all sorts of other regional problems that, although unlikely, are still ultimately airway risks in and of themselves. Thoughts? Every time I hear someone propose regional as a "get out of jail free card", particularly as an expert witness, I'm just slightly frustrated because it presumes you've just dropped your airway risk to zero.
 
I have several major issues with this articles, but for now, I'd like to just highlight one particular comment, ""Had Dr. Abraham performed a proper preoperative evaluation of Mr. Springs," wrote Dr. Scott Groudine, professor of anesthesiology at Albany Medical Center and plaintiff expert witness, in a report filed with the court, "she would have learned that his airway would likely be difficult to secure. This knowledge should have led her to either (1) ensure that she would have additional equipment and support in place to secure his airway; or (2) choose an alternative to general anesthesia such as...regional anesthesia under which Mr. Springs could continue to breathe on his own."

Does anyone else have an issue with Abraham's contention #2? Namely, that regional always affords us the ability to summarily dismiss any airway concerns we previously had. I think it's foolish to: a) be concerned about someone's airway; b) plan for regional because of a); c)(MOST IMPORTANT)--assume that a plan for regional automatically reduces the risk of a) to zero. I think airways concerns that lead to regional are always justified but NOT if they lead to some false sense of security that the regional could fail, a Bier Block could go SERIOUSLY wrong, and all sorts of other regional problems that, although unlikely, are still ultimately airway risks in and of themselves. Thoughts? Every time I hear someone propose regional as a "get out of jail free card", particularly as an expert witness, I'm just slightly frustrated because it presumes you've just dropped your airway risk to zero.

Yes, but if regional is an option that was overlooked, and it may be the preferred option, that's difficult evidence to overlook or play down. ie. The patient died because an airway was not secured and an emergency airway was not placed, or placed in time. The jury will certainly want to know that there was an option available to you that didn't involve securing the airway. Could it fail? Sure.
 
I have several major issues with this articles, but for now, I'd like to just highlight one particular comment, ""Had Dr. Abraham performed a proper preoperative evaluation of Mr. Springs," wrote Dr. Scott Groudine, professor of anesthesiology at Albany Medical Center and plaintiff expert witness, in a report filed with the court, "she would have learned that his airway would likely be difficult to secure. This knowledge should have led her to either (1) ensure that she would have additional equipment and support in place to secure his airway; or (2) choose an alternative to general anesthesia such as...regional anesthesia under which Mr. Springs could continue to breathe on his own."

Does anyone else have an issue with Abraham's contention #2? Namely, that regional always affords us the ability to summarily dismiss any airway concerns we previously had. I think it's foolish to: a) be concerned about someone's airway; b) plan for regional because of a); c)(MOST IMPORTANT)--assume that a plan for regional automatically reduces the risk of a) to zero. I think airways concerns that lead to regional are always justified but NOT if they lead to some false sense of security that the regional could fail, a Bier Block could go SERIOUSLY wrong, and all sorts of other regional problems that, although unlikely, are still ultimately airway risks in and of themselves. Thoughts? Every time I hear someone propose regional as a "get out of jail free card", particularly as an expert witness, I'm just slightly frustrated because it presumes you've just dropped your airway risk to zero.

a point i make every time i do a block for a case
 
Does anyone else have an issue with Abraham's contention #2? Namely, that regional always affords us the ability to summarily dismiss any airway concerns we previously had.

Absolutely agree with you. This is one area where the oral boards examiners have it exactly correct. If you try to bail out of a difficult airway by using regional you have to be prepared to manage the airway under less than optimal conditions when the regional fails.

- pod
 
one thing i couldnt get from that article is that it seems that springs was a known difficult airway, although this isnt explicitly stated, but its mentioned a few times that if she had been more thorough she would have realized that his airway might have been difficult...anyone have insight here? i think that improper evaluation of a known difficult airway is pretty bad judgement as is deciding to use an LMA as a way to avoid properly securing a known difficult aurway
 
Members don't see this ad :)
A disturbing quote from Roger Staubach (page 4 of the article):

"It just reminds you that the most important person in surgery isn't the doctor," Staubach says, "it's the anesthesiologist."
 
cant believe she didnt use sux but hard to make the argument that its negligent - i dont care what anyone says, i do not see optimal intubating conditions with roc in less than 60 seconds.

he may not have even been difficult but if you screw with an LMA long enough, try to bag someone, are by yourself and cant draw up drugs quickly enough then maybe you can end up taking 2-4 minutes to secure an airway
 
cant believe she didnt use sux

I was thinking that too, then wondering if she was in the same position that I am right now... no sux available.

Who do you sue then? Pharmacy for not obtaining it from alternate sources? The manufacturer? The FDA?

Of course I realize it would be the anesthesiologists for proceeding with the procedure "without necessary safety medications," but it reminds me just how precarious a situation some of us are in right now.

Anyone know just how quickly that 2 mg/kg Roc dose achieves intubating conditions?

- pod
 
cant believe she didnt use sux but hard to make the argument that its negligent - i dont care what anyone says, i do not see optimal intubating conditions with roc in less than 60 seconds.

he may not have even been difficult but if you screw with an LMA long enough, try to bag someone, are by yourself and cant draw up drugs quickly enough then maybe you can end up taking 2-4 minutes to secure an airway

Asking from a position of ignorance, is it not possible to draw up the meds prior to beginning the intubation? If you are flying solo, why not just assume you'll need 'em and draw up what you anticipate needing?

It would seem to be more prudent to waste a few cc's of drugs than to find yourself in this position.

Again, I don't know my a**hole from my elbow, so my thoughts are worth absolutely nothing but I am curious as to what you guys think of this.
 
I was thinking that too, then wondering if she was in the same position that I am right now... no sux available.

Who do you sue then? Pharmacy for not obtaining it from alternate sources? The manufacturer? The FDA?

Of course I realize it would be the anesthesiologists for proceeding with the procedure "without necessary safety medications," but it reminds me just how precarious a situation some of us are in right now.

Anyone know just how quickly that 2 mg/kg Roc dose achieves intubating conditions?

- pod




Succinylcholine (Sch) and rocuronium (ROC) are both recommended for rapid sequence induction intubation. The onset, extent, and duration of muscle paralysis are dose-dependent.
Pharmacodynamic studies suggest the effective dose (ED95) for succinylcholine is 0.3 mg/kg; adequate muscle relaxation may take 120 seconds.[1] Naguib and colleagues[2] randomized 180 patients to variable doses of Sch following fentanyl and propofol induction. They found that excellent intubation conditions at 50 seconds were obtained in 80% of patients with 1.5 mg/kg vs only 63% with 1.0 mg/kg Sch. The durations of action were 7.2 and 5.9 minutes, respectively.[2] Another study found that reducing Sch dose by 40% (from 1.0 mg/kg to 0.6 mg/kg) hastened muscle recovery by 90 seconds.[3] The superior intubation conditions achieved with the 1.5-mg/kg dose of Sch trumps any concern about this minimal increase in duration of action. Finally, muscle fasciculations and myalgias are less pronounced with 1.5 mg/kg dose than with lower doses.[4] Although some providers advocate for larger doses of Sch, such as 2 mg/kg, there is no pharmacologic or clinical rationale for this dosage increase in adults based on anecdotal experience. The best dose of Sch for emergency intubation is 1.5 mg/kg.
ROC is the preferred muscle relaxant when there are contraindications to Sch. A randomized study of patients using various doses of ROC identified 1 mg/kg as the dose necessary to achieve intubation in 60 seconds in 95% of patients.[5] Another randomized study of 349 patients also found that 0.6 mg/kg of ROC was inferior to 1 mg/kg.[6] In the emergency setting, achieving excellent intubation conditions reliably and early is paramount, arguing convincingly for the 1 mg/kg dose.
Two recent large meta-analyses containing only controlled trials showed that both clinically excellent and acceptable intubation conditions are more likely with succinylcholine compared to 0.6-0.8 mg/kg of ROC, independent of the induction agent. High-dose ROC (1.0-1.2 mg/kg) was statistically similar to Sch; however, the prolonged duration of action of ROC argues in favor of SCh as the drug of choice for emergency rapid sequence induction intubation, unless contraindications exist.[7,8]
While most drugs are dosed by total body weight (TBW) for normal-sized adults, morbidly obese patients are often dosed based on their "ideal" body weightor by "lean" body weight. Lean body weight adds 30% of the total weight increase (over ideal body weight) to account for increased intravascular and tissue volume. When dosed by TBW, succinylcholine has activity in obese adolescents equivalent to TBW dosing in nonobese controls.[9] A study of 45 morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery found that intubation conditions were superior in patients randomized to TBW vs ideal body weight dosing.[10]
There are few studies of ROC in morbidly obese patients, but most show a prolongation of the duration of action.[11,12] One study of patients with body mass index > 40 kg/m2 found that recovery to 25% of full muscle twitch tension was more than doubled (55 vs 22 minutes, P < .001) when TBW dosing was used vs ideal body weight. Time to onset of muscle relaxation, however, was not statistically different (77 vs 87 seconds).[13]
 
Asking from a position of ignorance, is it not possible to draw up the meds prior to beginning the intubation? If you are flying solo, why not just assume you'll need 'em and draw up what you anticipate needing?

It would seem to be more prudent to waste a few cc's of drugs than to find yourself in this position.

Again, I don't know my a**hole from my elbow, so my thoughts are worth absolutely nothing but I am curious as to what you guys think of this.

You're right - you don't know. Drugs cost money. Drawing them up "just in case" and then having to toss them at the end of the day is incredibly wasteful and expensive. Do you want a list of drugs that are currently in short supply nationally, including propofol, sux, ephedrine, narcan, etc.?
 
You're right - you don't know. Drugs cost money. Drawing them up "just in case" and then having to toss them at the end of the day is incredibly wasteful and expensive. Do you want a list of drugs that are currently in short supply nationally, including propofol, sux, ephedrine, narcan, etc.?

Calm down there, homeskillet. I asked a question. I meant to acknowledge the cost of drugs in my post with the question, but since you've brought up costs, how much does a suit cost from a bad outcome? Care to guess? What about the business lost to the hospital because its docs "caused" a bad outcome? The increase in costs for malpractice for the individual or group based upon the nearly inevitable settlement between the insurance company and the plaintiff? This speaks nothing to the costs paid by a patient or the family of a patient with a bad outcome.

Now, let me rephrase the question while you step down off of your high horse; wouldn't it be more prudent in a situation where you are flying solo and you suspect a difficult airway?
 
This is just an an anecdotal incident.

how about this case?

Does this mean women should not be doing anesthesia? Or does this paint all anesthesiologists as just incompetent?

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-...sad-detour-through-stagnation-and-litigation/


I want you trolls to read this post several times. If you read the story referenced above about Springs you will clearly see the PLASTIC SURGEON is being dragged into the lawsuit. It is less than 50/50 that surgeon is going to get out of this lawsuit. Why? The Surgeon didn't tell the anesthesia provider, a physician, what to administer or do. The surgeon didn't force the provider to do the case under GA or even to do the case at all. Yet, the family blames the surgeon for the "inexperienced" provider who made a rookie mistake.

Now, change the provider to EtherCRNA the Solo CRNA working in the plastic surgeon's office. Let's say Mr.Springs shows up with CASH IN HAND for a simple procedure. The surgeon places the informal request to his CRNA for anesthesia. The CRNA who isn't a Physician decides Mr. Springs while an ASA 3 is still okay for the procedure. No Regional is offered.

What do you think will happen to the Surgeon? His practice? Will the Judge be as quick to dismiss the Surgeon and blame the CRNA for 100% of the bad outcome? I think not.

Solo CRNA anesthesia is second tier anesthesia. Like it or not. The surgeon and/or Gi Doc will be blamed and sued for the CRNA's actions. However, this doesn't mean every Judge will agree the Gi Doc or Surgeon has any part in the malpractice lawsuit. In fact, the CRNA may indeed be sued entirely for his actions. But, the more likely course of events is that the surgeon will be held liable for the preexisting medical condition of the patient and its contributions in the malpractice case. Should the surgeon have requested Local/Mac or Regional?

If Mr. Springs had any contractures in his face/neck or his airway looked difficult I would have blocked him (U/S guided supraclavicular block); however, if his old records showed no problems with previous intubations I would have Glidescope stand-bye and proceed as usual. By the way, LMAs can and do fail to seat properly and I see one per week (out of a lot of LMAs)) which needs multiple attempts to seat properly. Every now and then patients develop larygospasm/bronchospasm from insufficient anesthesia or preexisting lung disease (or both).

Anyway, Solo CRNA anesthesia can and will lead to more Surgeon lawsuits if intraop complications develop. As for postop the CRNA isn't qualified in that arena and Surgeons will be viewed as delegating authority to the CRNA.

The militant CRNAs simply are misguided in believing Civil Trial Attorneys won't pursue the Surgeon in these cases. The case involving Mr. Springs is a perfect example showing the lines between pre-existing medical conditions and intraoperative care are blurred.
 
Last edited:
Hola, Friends,

Possibly, or even endotracheal. I have never regretted intubating a patient, even for one minute procedures. The converse is true, too, I have many times wished I had intubated a patient I didn't intubate.

Do you see the irony in your statement? I think you didn't intend it that way. It seems to be a bona fide assertion. The fact is that not intubating him and not giving him a full fledged general anesthetic was the over-kill.

Obstructive sleep apnea is just incidental. According to closed claims analysis, this is a common case scenario even in the absence of obstructive sleep apnea. That is why most cardiac arrests during the oral boards are presented during a local or sedation case.

If there is one message to take home from this case is this: Please take anesthesia seriously, take endoscopies seriously, and take sedation seriously.

Greetings

When doing OUTPATIENT colonoscopies the most important rule for a CRNA or an Anesthesiologist is to ask these questions:

Is this patient appropriate for an outpatient center? Does he meet the standards/guidelines for outpatient anesthesia? If he was done at the hospital what would you do differently? Do I have an anesthesia machine or difficult intubation equipment on hand? Do I have back-up or extra help ready if needed? When some adverse event happens will I be able to justify my decision to do this patient as an outpatient or without back-up equipment?


CRNAs are pressured to do these types of cases every day. Either they don't know better or they don't care but they do them. As an MD it is my job to say "no" from time to time and advise a hospital setting with back-up personel and equipment. I have done it before and will do it again.
 
You're right - you don't know. Drugs cost money. Drawing them up "just in case" and then having to toss them at the end of the day is incredibly wasteful and expensive. Do you want a list of drugs that are currently in short supply nationally, including propofol, sux, ephedrine, narcan, etc.?

take it easy big fella, no need to get all testy.
 
Calm down there, homeskillet. I asked a question. I meant to acknowledge the cost of drugs in my post with the question, but since you've brought up costs, how much does a suit cost from a bad outcome? Care to guess? What about the business lost to the hospital because its docs "caused" a bad outcome? The increase in costs for malpractice for the individual or group based upon the nearly inevitable settlement between the insurance company and the plaintiff? This speaks nothing to the costs paid by a patient or the family of a patient with a bad outcome.

Now, let me rephrase the question while you step down off of your high horse; wouldn't it be more prudent in a situation where you are flying solo and you suspect a difficult airway?

Sorry, I was taking you literally from your first post where you said

"Asking from a position of ignorance.....Again, I don't know my a**hole from my elbow, so my thoughts are worth absolutely nothing but I am curious as to what you guys think of this."

You asked a question and for an opinion. I gave you one. Do a search and you'll see this type of question has been raised before. Even in this thread, someone has asked the question just a few posts back - what if I don't have sux because it's not available?????

Sux is not the be-all and end-all of airway management. If a patient is already coding, they don't need it. One can certainly make the argument that in a patient in distress that is still breathing and has an airway, making them apneic with sux creates it's own set of problems.

As far as using roc for RSI's, we do it all the time, but we rarely wait 60 seconds to intubate. I guess if you're sitting there with a nerve stimulator waiting for the twitches to go away it may take that long. I just want the jaw muscles to relax enough so I can do my laryngoscopy, and for the vocal cords to part like the Red Sea about the time my tube is passing over the tongue.
 
Sorry, I was taking you literally from your first post where you said

"Asking from a position of ignorance.....Again, I don't know my a**hole from my elbow, so my thoughts are worth absolutely nothing but I am curious as to what you guys think of this."

You asked a question and for an opinion. I gave you one.

Yeah, I suppose I read more malice into your post than you put in there. Sorry about that and my snotty retort. Thanks for the reply.
 
Blade, i dont read it that way

he isnt being dragged into it for not telling the MD what to do, hes being dragged into it because he wasnt in the room and apparently he is a very poor witness (might not have even been in the hospital). Hes also at fault for not communicating with the rest of the team about this patient, if i read correctly, and while that probably wouldnt have changed the outcome, it sure looks bad here. patients expect all their physicians, even ones that they only meet for 30 minutes, to give them the best possible care - its likely that they didnt even meet this surgeon EVER and certainly not the day of surgery
 
...Anyone know just how quickly that 2 mg/kg Roc dose achieves intubating conditions? - pod
Succinylcholine (Sch) and rocuronium (ROC) are both recommended for rapid sequence induction intubation. The onset, ...

I would hope that at this point in my career I wouldn't need Medscape to inform me about basic dosing of Roc and Sux. What I am curious about, and asked about, is not the basics. I am curious about pushing the upper boundary to achieve an even faster onset.

The 2 mg/kg dose was studied by Heier and James in their paper Rapid Tracheal Intubation with Large-Dose Rocuronium: A Probability-Based Approach. They examined doses of 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, or 2.0 mg/kg followed by laryngoscopy 40 seconds after rocuronium dosing. Laryngoscopy was graded as excellent, good, or poor.

They then did logistic regression to define the relationship of rocuronium dose to probability of achieving perfect intubation conditions at 40 sec post roc dosing.

They found a 90-95% probability of perfect intubating conditions with 1.85 and 2.33 mg/kg respectively. The 5th and 95th percentile confidence limits were 1.15 to 2.31 and 1.23 - 3.22 respectively.

To my knowledge, nobody has looked at the actual time to onset of perfect conditions of these higher range doses, but I thought perhaps someone here might know of some data.

The median duration (being defined as time to first tactile TOF response) of rocuronium 2.0 mg/kg was 110 min (range 80–160 min). They used traditional twitch monitors, and I am assuming they mean time to 1 twitch, not time to 4 twitches on the tactile TOF.

Of course, I can just see the look on pharmacy's face when they see that I gave one individual 300 mg of rocuronium at induction. :smuggrin:

- pod
 
he isnt being dragged into it for not telling the MD what to do, hes being dragged into it because he wasnt in the room and apparently

Hes also at fault for not communicating with the rest of the team about this patient, if i read correctly,


If the surgeon not being in the room at the time of induction and not communicating about medically difficult patients with the anesthesia team is legitimate grounds for a successful suit, then I am very worried for all but 1 or 2 surgeons that I have ever worked with.

- pod
 
I would hope that at this point in my career I wouldn't need Medscape to inform me about basic dosing of Roc and Sux. What I am curious about, and asked about, is not the basics. I am curious about pushing the upper boundary to achieve an even faster onset.

The 2 mg/kg dose was studied by Heier and James in their paper Rapid Tracheal Intubation with Large-Dose Rocuronium: A Probability-Based Approach. They examined doses of 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, or 2.0 mg/kg followed by laryngoscopy 40 seconds after rocuronium dosing. Laryngoscopy was graded as excellent, good, or poor.

They then did logistic regression to define the relationship of rocuronium dose to probability of achieving perfect intubation conditions at 40 sec post roc dosing.

They found a 90-95% probability of perfect intubating conditions with 1.85 and 2.33 mg/kg respectively. The 5th and 95th percentile confidence limits were 1.15 to 2.31 and 1.23 - 3.22 respectively.

To my knowledge, nobody has looked at the actual time to onset of perfect conditions of these higher range doses, but I thought perhaps someone here might know of some data.

The median duration (being defined as time to first tactile TOF response) of rocuronium 2.0 mg/kg was 110 min (range 80&#8211;160 min). They used traditional twitch monitors, and I am assuming they mean time to 1 twitch, not time to 4 twitches on the tactile TOF.

Of course, I can just see the look on pharmacy's face when they see that I gave one individual 300 mg of rocuronium at induction. :smuggrin:

- pod

I use Roc at 1 mg/kg actual body weight. I am very happy with that dose and find rapid intubating conditions excellent or very good 99% of the time. Try it sometime on a longer case and see for yourself.
 
If I use Roc, I typically use 0.5 mg/kg to start a short case, 1 mg/kg to start a long case, and 1.5 mg/kg for a RSI (this makes the math easy).

Of course I have to wait a bit longer to get excellent blockade with the 0.5 mg/kg dose. I have never dosed over 1.5 mg/kg and I am wondering how close I can get to the onset time of Sux with higher doses. I would pay for it on the other end with prolonged time to offset, but in those situations, like the one we are discussing, where every second is of the essence, I might just say "damn the postoperative ventilator needs full Roc ahead."

- pod
 
but again WHY NOT JUST USE SUX, not having any is the only reason in this case

and we have the 100mg vials of roc but some people only carry the 50s, that could be 3-4 to draw up just to induce a crashing patient. deal breaker for me
 
Because, I DON'T have any and likely won't get a new supply until Nov 2.

Or for the patient with a contraindication to Sux.


-pod

yeah we all get the contraindication part...this was 2007, also, I dont think shortages were an issue at that time, were they? i wonder if ignorance of the use of sux in people with renal failure (which he didnt even have anymore) contributed to this.
 
I thought when you said "but again WHY NOT JUST USE SUX" you were asking me. I see you were referring to the case.

My mistake.

- pod
 
"Medical malpractice insurance rates for CRNAs are artificially low because the nurses do not bear primary responsibility for any negligent actions. When a CRNA injures a patient, the legal liability for that injury flows directly to the supervising physician--either the surgeon or the anesthesiologist. In some cases, the nurse is not even sued. In cases where the CRNA is not supervised by an anesthesiologist, the plaintiff's attorney focuses on the surgeon rather than the CRNA. The surgeon is a much less sympathetic target in front of a jury. As the licensed physician in charge, the surgeon is expected to know all aspects of anesthesiology practice. Plaintiffs' attorneys are able to make supervising surgeons appear negligent by forcing them to admit that they relied on the nurse's knowledge of anesthesia. This is ethically questionable and violates the medical practice act in most states because it is impossible to supervise care that one does not understand."

The surgeon will probably end up being sued...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
surprised I never heard about this case until now. this case is a perfect example of why Anesthesiologists need to be performing such cases and not CRNAs. Surgicenters and GI suites should not risk patient safety by solely employing CRNAs. ASA and other Anesthesia related PR groups need to highlight this case in their awareness campaigns informing the general public, surgeons, and politicians.

the original link expired. here is the new link:
http://www.outpatientsurgery.net/ou...-gi-suite-patients-family-sues-crna--05-19-10
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why are you resurrecting a 3 1/2 year old thread moisne?

And the link you quote is from 1993. A lot has changed since then.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x943.htm
I would like to know more about these issues. I am interested in anesthesiology but not if CRNA will just end up taking over. As future MD, I would like to know how much liability I will end up taking for nurses/PA/etc when they make mistakes. It seems the docs/surgeons always get hit when things go south. And here I thought s*** rolls down hill, not up
 
And here I thought s*** rolls down hill, not up

It depends on the situation. There are examples of court cases where the CRNA effed up and the anesthesiologist was exonerated. This is usually not the case though because the CRNA will say they called for help and the anesthesiologist is on the hook. Lawyers love deep pockets.

The more and more I think about this issue - especially with the changing practice environment and based on my experiences at my last job - the more and more I think we should just let them practice independently. No help. Let the chips fall where they may. Don't call us if you have a problem. Figure it out on your own.

The longitudinal decrease in expected outcomes will speak volumes. Sure, there are current practices that will drown or won't survive. Some fatcat grayhairs currently raking in the dough will have their big salaries cut currently cashing in on the backs of the young bucks they're never going to make partner. But after a while I think there will be such an outcry from surgeons and administrators especially at big hospital systems that the situation will correct itself.

There are some great CRNAs and there are some incredibly bad ones. The great ones will end up "supervising" the bad ones and then we will see the same complaints we now have about them. Except I find them generally to be a lot more vicious about things like watching when their shift ends, complaining about taking call, perceived "unfairness" in case assignments, etc. It's petty nurse bull**** that even the best of them can't seem to escape.

So just let 'em have it. They will complain, complain, complain. Mark my words. Right now they are having their cake and eating it too. And the overall quality of care will suffer. On that point I have no doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
One of the places I do locums/moonlighting has pseudo-independent CRNAs. CA is an opt out state. For the most part they do their cases mostly without help or input from an anesthesiologist. However, it's not really independent practice because an anesthesiologist has eyeballed EVERY preop and scheduling is done by an anesthesiologist, so the CRNAs are triaged away from the more complex patients. On the occasions when a sick patient does go to a CRNA room, the anesthesiologist med director of the day / floorwalker gets the case going with the CNRA and stays as long as needed. A few of the CRNAs do lines, most don't. All do spinals for things like total joints. None do epidurals for postop pain. I think one (ex-military) CRNA occasionally does some blocks, the rest don't know how.

Some of the CRNAs are experienced and good, a couple are newly out of training and need a lot more help. I think this is a realistic future work model. Not perfect and not ideal, but the way things will probably go. Kind of a path-of-least-resistance for everyone involved that on the whole gets the low-fruit easy cases done by CRNAs and the complex cases done by anesthesiologists, with (mostly) some anesthesiologist backup available, but without the anesthesiologist really being on the hook for any CRNA errors. They are responsible for their cases, we are responsible for ours, but the expectation is that if the CRNA needs help, someone from the group will help them.

I tell this story and bring this up to make a simple point: you can talk about cutting them loose and letting them fend for themselves, no bailouts, but totally apart from the ethical argument of what's best for the patient (an innocent party who generally doesn't get to choose who does his anesthesia) the showstopping hitch to that idea is that the hospital would immediately cut the whole group loose and open up bids to AMCs promising backup if the MDs quit the fireman job.

Most hospital administrators know the score. They know CRNAs need backup. They know CRNAs don't really cost less but the OR makes money and the OR needs to run and they need gas-passing bodies. If the anesthesiologist group (or employed anesthesiologists) won't provide that backup, they'll hire new anesthesiologists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You're talking exactly about the "having their cake and eating it too" scenario. I want even LESS part of that than the current system. No thanks.

And, you're not worried about those "innocent parties" in the ER who have full stomachs and get etomidate for "conscious sedation"? The CRNAs are the ones stating they're equivalent. Let them prove it.

Turn 'em loose. Let the chips fall...
 
Turn 'em loose. Let the chips fall...

:thumbup:



I, also, can't believe that I haven't heard of this case until now. I guess that just goes to show how well the ASA is educating the public....
 
This case sounds oddly familiar. I wonder why...
 
I have heard of a older case in GI died of aspiration. All MD practice.
Similar case like the one described but it happened in the cardiac lab for patient scheduled for rf ablation for chronic afib. Ent was called and did cric, patient alive in the icu. But these cases just make u wonder that all these are possible and that it can happen to every one of us. However if you can anticipate and have plan b and if u can keep ur cool that's the hall mark of a wise anesthesia provider.
Gi equipment can be brought to the main or when they do ERCP. May be when this high bmi with OSas, we can tell them to bring the patient to the main or, have senior or nurses help u during induction and once stable transfer to the procedure room.
 
I have heard of a older case in GI died of aspiration. All MD practice.
Similar case like the one described but it happened in the cardiac lab for patient scheduled for rf ablation for chronic afib. Ent was called and did cric, patient alive in the icu. But these cases just make u wonder that all these are possible and that it can happen to every one of us. However if you can anticipate and have plan b and if u can keep ur cool that's the hall mark of a wise anesthesia provider.
Gi equipment can be brought to the main or when they do ERCP. May be when this high bmi with OSas, we can tell them to bring the patient to the main or, have senior or nurses help u during induction and once stable transfer to the procedure room.

Inquisitiveanes, Please stop drinking admin and CRNA cool aid and calling yourself an "anesthesia provider". You are an anesthesiologist. Unless of course, you aren't because you sound sketchy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top