CRNA liability

Started by Pharmado
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
P

Pharmado

PharmaDo
Verified Member
10+ Year Member
At my lovely rural hospital, the surgeons have been told that if they are supervising they aren't really accepting more liability, because no surgeon has been sued due to an anesthesia complication. This seems questionable to me as the CRNAs are working under the surgeons license here in Indiana (not an opt out state). I’m sure this is state specific, but is anyone aware of any specific examples of surgeons being sued for anesthesia complications while overseeing CRNAs? The surgeons take the attitude that they have nothing to do with the anesthesia because they’ve been convinced by administration that there is no risk to them, which seems like an overly optimistic view.
 
Pharmado said:
At my lovely rural hospital, the surgeons have been told that if they are supervising they aren't really accepting more liability, because no surgeon has been sued due to an anesthesia complication. This seems questionable to me as the CRNAs are working under the surgeons license here in Indiana (not an opt out state). I’m sure this is state specific, but is anyone aware of any specific examples of surgeons being sued for anesthesia complications while overseeing CRNAs? The surgeons take the attitude that they have nothing to do with the anesthesia because they’ve been convinced by administration that there is no risk to them, which seems like an overly optimistic view.
Click to expand...
LOL

You answered your own question.
Frankly, who cares what the surgeons in Indiana are doing.
At some point they will find out.
But the fact of the matter is, none of us will be liable..
And thats all that matters at this point
 
I seem to recall a case of an ophthalmologist being successfully sued for the CRNA losing the airway. I think that was also the case where the CRNA refused to admit he tubed the esophagus, and shoved EMS out of the way when they tried to (succeeded) secure the airway.

As the deepest pockets, they will always be named, and the plaintiff's lawyers will go after them hard, using the motion that the surgeon is the captain of the ship. They may get dropped, but it'll take a lot of time and money.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
 
psychbender said:
I seem to recall a case of an ophthalmologist being successfully sued for the CRNA losing the airway. I think that was also the case where the CRNA refused to admit he tubed the esophagus, and shoved EMS out of the way when they tried to (succeeded) secure the airway.

As the deepest pockets, they will always be named, and the plaintiff's lawyers will go after them hard, using the motion that the surgeon is the captain of the ship. They may get dropped, but it'll take a lot of time and money.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
Click to expand...


Co-Defendant CRNA Denies Responsibility for Failed Resuscitation – OMIC

Guessing it's this one?
 
I know this seems wrong, but more of these cases would aid in a shift away from CRNA only practices and back towards models with an anesthesiologist involved in every pts care.
 
Pharmado said:
I know this seems wrong, but more of these cases would aid in a shift away from CRNA only practices and back towards models with an anesthesiologist involved in every pts care.
Click to expand...
All you need is one major public case to send chills up the surgeon's spine.

I think it's malpractice for surgeons to subject patients to the risk of inferior anesthesia practitioners (solo CRNAs).
 
Those surgeons are stupid. Anytime a physician accepts to supervise another healthcare worker, in the eyes of the law, it's as if the physician was doing whatever the surrogate is.

It's not collaboration, because that happens between peers with similar levels of education. Hence they will be 100% liable for everything. It's as if we were supervising a surgical PA during an operation and expecting not to be liable.
 
It seems like this last posted case, the verdict was against the anesthesia company. I don’t see where the surgeon was held liable, though he/she was a part of the suit.
 
FFP said:
Anytime a physician accepts to supervise another healthcare worker, in the eyes of the law, it's as if the physician was doing whatever the surrogate is.

It's not collaboration, because that happens between peers with similar levels of education. Hence they will be 100% liable for everything. It's as if we were supervising a surgical PA during an operation and expecting not to be liable.
Click to expand...
IS that true?
 
"A physician may also be held vicariously liable for the acts of a PE on the grounds that the PE is acting as an agent of the physician. In some states, statutes create a conclusive presumption of agency so that a physician will always be responsible for the negligence of a PE. In other states, liability will depend on whether the physician has a right to control the work done by the PE.

However, given the typical requirements of supervision, it will be a rare circumstance when a PE will not be found to be an agent of the supervising physician."

www.medicaleconomics.com

Physician liability for the actions of midlevel providers

Will employing mid-level providers put physicians at risk?
www.medicaleconomics.com www.medicaleconomics.com
 
AdmiralChz said:
And the conclusions of the malpractice company is to assess competency of anesthesia folks? Umm...
Click to expand...

Good point, I hadn't noticed before.

"First, find out if there is a peer review process in place to review the competency of CRNAs and anesthesiologists"

What do crnas working under surgeons have to do with anesthesiologists at this centre? I would say absolutely nothing!

911 is a terrible back up option. This surgical centre should really be shut down and others like it if their back up is 911 and shoving crnas.
I wonder what the nurses propaganda machine says about this case? Anyone ever see their response?
 
Pharmado said:
It seems like this last posted case, the verdict was against the anesthesia company. I don’t see where the surgeon was held liable, though he/she was a part of the suit.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the verdict there. It says the CRNA settled for 975 and the OMIC insured settled in later mediation for 800. The first sentence in the summary though says the ophtho was non-OMIC insured....
 
vector2 said:
I don't understand the verdict there. It says the CRNA settled for 975 and the OMIC insured settled in later mediation for 800. The first sentence in the summary though says the ophtho was non-OMIC insured....
Click to expand...

Patient originally saw an outside optho. Suffered a complication, and then came to see the insured optho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.