Story on Libby Zion and the 80 hour work week

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Abram Hoffer

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
A Life-Changing Case for Doctors in Training

03zion-600.jpg
A DAUGHTER LOST After Libby Zion died in a hospital at age 18, her father’s crusade led to changes in work hours and supervision of medical residents.





By BARRON H. LERNER, M.D.
Published: March 2, 2009

Doctor and Patient: On Young Doctors and Long Workdays (March 3, 2009)




The efforts of her bereaved and furious father, Sidney Zion, set into a motion a series of reforms to the system of medical education that he believed had killed his daughter.
I remember the Zion case vividly because I was a medical student when Libby died. To this day, especially among students and physicians practicing medicine in New York at the time, the case inspires intense emotions and impassioned arguments.
The exact cause of Libby’s death was never found, but many facts are known. When she was admitted to New York Hospital (now New York Presbyterian Hospital) on the evening of March 4, 1984, she was an 18-year-old college freshman with a high fever and mysterious jerking movements. She was alternately cooperative and agitated. She had a history of depression and was taking phenelzine, an antidepressant.
The physicians admitted Libby for observation and hydration, suspecting she had a viral syndrome. She was also given meperidine, an opiate drug used to stop shaking movements. The physicians who evaluated her — doctors in training known as residents — touched base with Dr. Raymond Sherman, the Zions’ family doctor and the attending physician of record, who agreed with the plan. It was about 3 a.m. on March 5.
But Libby became more agitated. When notified of this, the first-year resident who had evaluated her, Dr. Luise L. Weinstein, ordered physical restraints as well as a shot of haloperidol, another sedating medication. Busy covering dozens of other patients, Dr. Weinstein did not visually evaluate Libby again. The second-year resident on the case, Dr. Gregg Stone, had gone across the street to try to get a few hours of sleep, as was customary at the time.
The nurses later reported that Libby finally calmed down, but when her vital signs were rechecked at 6 that morning, her temperature was an alarming 107 degrees. The staff immediately tried to cool her. But she soon suffered a cardiac arrest, and despite extensive attempts at resuscitation, she could not be brought back.
After their initial grief and shock, Sidney Zion and his wife, Elsa, hired a lawyer and began to investigate Libby’s death. When Mr. Zion learned that his daughter had been tied down and not re-evaluated, that the only doctors who had seen her were in training, that such doctors routinely worked 36-hour shifts with little or no sleep, and that the attending physician had never come into the hospital, his response turned to fury.
He decided to make his daughter’s death a crusade for reform. A former lawyer and a powerful journalist who had worked for The New York Times and other newspapers, he enlisted fellow reporters across the country to tell his daughter’s story. He even persuaded the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, to take the highly unusual step of convening a grand jury to consider murder charges against the physicians involved.
At the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, my fellow medical students and I replayed the events of that night. Would we have ordered restraints and not seen her? Would we have sent her to the intensive care unit? Would we have known about a potentially toxic interaction between the drugs in her body?
Ultimately, we concluded that “there but for the grace of God go I.” We could not definitively state that we would have done anything differently. The young doctors caring for Libby Zion had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. When I subsequently had the opportunity to research the case for a book on famous patients, I concluded that the admitting team had a good plan but had erred in not realizing that their patient’s condition was deteriorating.
The malpractice case, which went to trial in 1994, ultimately assigned equal blame to New York Hospital and Libby Zion for supposedly concealing her past use of cocaine. But the case’s real legacies were the issues of resident work hours and supervision.
This came as no surprise to those of us in the trenches. We knew what it was like to stay up for 36 hours straight, first as medical students and later as residents. It was, in a word, insanity. Deprived of sleep, we roamed the wards, dreaming of when we could finally leave, dozing off on rounds, screaming at patients and colleagues and praying we would not make any grievous mistakes. As Sidney Zion’s campaign took off, I felt sorry for the competent and well-meaning doctors he pilloried, but was thrilled that change was occurring.
The impetus for reform was the grand jury, which did not indict the physicians but rather issued a report highly critical of the hospital. This led to the formation of a state commission, headed by the New York physician Dr. Bertrand Bell, which in 1987 recommended that doctors in training work no more than 80 hours a week and no more than 24 hours in a row and receive significantly more on-site supervision from senior physicians. In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education made these recommendations mandatory for all residency training programs.
But this was not enough. This past December, the Institute of Medicine released a report recommending even stricter work-hour reductions and concluding that supervision of young physicians remained inadequate.
It had taken 25 years, but Sidney Zion’s dream had been realized — at least in part. In a recent interview, he told me he hoped that financing would be forthcoming to carry out the reforms. “I don’t know anyone who still works 24 straight hours in any other business,” he said. “And these are people with lives in their hands.”
The changes do have their critics, who say that “night float” systems, put into place to allow residents to sleep, make patient care disjointed, producing “shift worker” doctors who never truly learn how complicated illnesses evolve in the first crucial 24 to 36 hours. A 2007 study in The Archives of Internal Medicine, for example, revealed high rates of errors resulting from poor handoffs of information between physicians.
The Institute of Medicine report does not ignore these concerns and makes suggestions for improving the new systems. But thinking back to those days and nights throwing back cups of coffee to barely stay awake, I know we cannot afford to turn back. When I now work with well-rested, pleasant and enthusiastic residents, my thoughts turn to Libby Zion. Her father’s cause, at least, is alive and well.
Barron H. Lerner, a professor of medicine and public health at Columbia University Medical Center, is the author of “When Illness Goes Public: Celebrity Patients and How We Look at Medicine.“

Members don't see this ad.
 
Interesting article about a famous old case/incident.

If Mr. Zion felt that the problem was excessive work hours, why would he want the residents prosecuted for murder? Just asking.

I agree with the work hours limits, but I'm not sure fatigue was the problem here. I believe that when they investigated, they found that the intern didn't know what to do anyway...I mean if you don't have the knowledge, then being too tired may not be the major issue. Too much cross-cover, and a lack of knowledge, perhaps? I feel that having too many crosscover patients is at least as much of an issue as staying up all night/having 30 to 36 hours shifts...I personally felt that when I was covering 40 or 50 patients, I just couldn't give them the same level of care as when I had 20 or 30. Also, I think lack of supervision was at play here...you really shouldn't have an intern taking care of a bunch of very sick patients alone. Even with the 24/30 work hour limits, we still have that. I can tell you that my resident was nowhere in site a lot of the time at 3 a.m. when I was an intern. 3 a.m. is the "witching hour" ...it's just a bad time in terms of circadian rhythms, and the worst time to get sick/sicker in a hospital. Basically, if this was a private patient, then I think the attending should have come in to see her...it was his patient, and he presumably knew her medical history, including perhaps the drug use? I believe the patient also lied about having used cocaine recently, if I'm not mistaken. I think that was found on later exam/autopsy?
 
She was a COKEHEAD? Wow, did not know that.

Still unclear to me what killed her, was she tripping when she came on drugs and then had a bad reaction to the anti-psychotics and had some type of endocrine storm? Or what?

So glad I dont directly care for people like this...so glad.
 
She was a COKEHEAD? Wow, did not know that.

Still unclear to me what killed her, was she tripping when she came on drugs and then had a bad reaction to the anti-psychotics and had some type of endocrine storm? Or what?

So glad I dont directly care for people like this...so glad.

Having read the article, it sounded like serotonin syndrome.

According to wikipedia (yes, not necessarily reliable) it was serotonin syndrome due to the phenelzine she was on and the resident giving her meperidine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Zion

However, that makes no sense to me because she was presenting with some of the symptoms. So it sounds like perhaps cocaine was involved and then perhaps the addition of meperedine exacerbated things.
 
The responsible resident would have probably given her the same treatment whether it was hour 1 or hour 36 of his work. Not that it matters anymore, because a grieving parent/family can convince themselves of just about anything irrespective of the truth.
 
She was a COKEHEAD? Wow, did not know that.

Still unclear to me what killed her, was she tripping when she came on drugs and then had a bad reaction to the anti-psychotics and had some type of endocrine storm? Or what?

So glad I dont directly care for people like this...so glad.

umm you think it had anything to do with her temperature of 107??
 
Interesting article about a famous old case/incident.

If Mr. Zion felt that the problem was excessive work hours, why would he want the residents prosecuted for murder? Just asking.

I agree with the work hours limits, but I'm not sure fatigue was the problem here. I believe that when they investigated, they found that the intern didn't know what to do anyway...I mean if you don't have the knowledge, then being too tired may not be the major issue.


you think someone who is walking around putting out fires for 30 hours non stop.. beepers going off every 30 seconds for some new disaster will have time or energy to even look up what they dont know. She prolly said the first thing that came to her mind, sounded good, the nurse agreed and she forged ahead in answering pages from other floors and to do other stuff. She didnt stop and say, oh man i have to check on libby zion.. or maybe she did but she didnt get a chance to.. Thats the problem.. There is too much work for one person to do. i was there..(not NY hospital) i was beat up every third night as an intern the whole year with no post call days off. Let me tell you something that **** is the worst torture that anyone can ever put you through. Im still seething about it. After getting the s h i t kicked out of you for 36 hours... you are pretty much delirious.

ANyway, well known case. Sidney zion is a hero. He did the right thing. There is a whole helluva lot more reform to be done in medicine and i wish more people had the fervor he had/has//
 
ANyway, well known case. Sidney zion is a hero. He did the right thing. There is a whole helluva lot more reform to be done in medicine and i wish more people had the fervor he had/has//

Yeah..no. Sidney Zion's daughter was a coker with psychiatric issues, end of story. The ME exam sounds like it was totally botched. Hell, she couldve died from a bad dose of GHB for all anyone knows.

According to wikipedia link referenced above...cough*Phd in wikipedia...Mr. Zion initially called the physicians "murders" and the grand jury was instructed to determine these as such.

In the end NONE of 38 counts of negligence stuck, none. Thus it is pretty astonishing to any rational person would jump to the conclusion long hours had anything at all to do with her death.

PS-did some more reading from the NYT and def. Dr. Wienstein was seriously at fault..when a nurse tells you an 18 year old girl is writhing and you dont come to the room asap...wth wth. BUT I will say the nurse should have gone over the resident's head and contacted the chief of service right away to get some action on this. Regardless, they should have fired the resident on the spot.
 
Last edited:
Yeah..no. Sidney Zion's daughter was a coker with psychiatric issues, end of story. The ME exam sounds like it was totally botched. Hell, she couldve died from a bad dose of GHB for all anyone knows.

According to wikipedia link referenced above...cough*Phd in wikipedia...Mr. Zion initially called the physicians "murders" and the grand jury was instructed to determine these as such.

In the end NONE of 38 counts of negligence stuck, none. Thus it is pretty astonishing to any rational person would jump to the conclusion long hours had anything at all to do with her death.

Zion was a bigwhig in NY publishing media as well as a former trial lawyer. He denied his daughter was involved in any illicits even after to tox reports suggested otherwise. He basically made a crusade against residency training out of his daughter's death, which possibly had as much to do with her cocaine abuse and then denial as anything the resident did (at least the juries found this to be the case). But he spun it as being due to the resident's lack of sleep and long shift, causing her to prescribe a bad choice of medication, and he wrote and published extensively on the topic, and the medical associations caved to the publicity he was able to generate (not the litigation) and created the 80 hour work week. Probably a good result for wrong reasons. He probably would have been more on target if he saved his venom for the drug dealers who killed his kid, not the doctors who couldn't save her from them.

The Wikipedia excerpt to the contrary notwithstanding, the jury did not, in fact, buy the serotonin syndrome mixture of meperidene on top of phenelzine as what killed her, and in fact determined that it was the unreported coke use that more likely led to her demise.
 
I think that was it-- the cocaine had her already hyperdynamic, and then serotonin syndrome polished her off.

Incidentally, both the protagonists came out all right:

http://www.weillcornell.org/llweinstein/
http://civtmd.columbia.edu/physicians/stone.html

Actually I heard from several people with first and secondhand knowledge (defense atty, resident who was in house that night) that the institution pretty much hung the housestaff out to dry. Stone hired his own atty, Weinstein didn't. Word around Cornell is that she still carries the events and outcome as a heavy burden.
 
Word around Cornell is that she still carries the events and outcome as a heavy burden.

Well, she did in fact not respond (purportedly..) to repeated calls her patient was thrashing around while in full restraints. Im mean WTH, the very least you come to check the patient isnt demonically possessed ala Exorcist. Her side of the story makes no sense to me, regardless of her "greeness" common sense should have kicked in.
 
He probably would have been more on target if he saved his venom for the drug dealers who killed his kid, not the doctors who couldn't save her from them.


then you would have been still working insane hours. HOw would you like that?
 
Well, she did in fact not respond (purportedly..) to repeated calls her patient was thrashing around while in full restraints. Im mean WTH, the very least you come to check the patient isnt demonically possessed ala Exorcist. Her side of the story makes no sense to me, regardless of her "greeness" common sense should have kicked in.

Maybe she was too damn busy to stop by and see. 40 inpatients is a lot of inpatients to be taking care of at night and she did have senior resident
 
Word around Cornell is that she still carries the events and outcome as a heavy burden.

why is she still there? I would be LONG gone. as soon as i could i would have found a job somewhere else.
 
Maybe she was too damn busy to stop by and see. 40 inpatients is a lot of inpatients to be taking care of at night and she did have senior resident

bingo...maybe we need STAFFING LIMITS and not ridiculous work hour limits. Once again nothing I have seen leads me at all to believe this occurred because she was tired from lack of sleep. Admit less patients, have more residents, better yet have more boarded physicians on staff....but work hour limitations from this makes no sense.
 
I worked a 12 hr day today and felt like passing out.
 
Law2Doc said:
The Wikipedia excerpt to the contrary notwithstanding, the jury did not, in fact, buy the serotonin syndrome mixture of meperidine on top of phenelzine as what killed her, and in fact determined that it was the unreported coke use that more likely led to her demise.

I don't know how you would disentangle all the factors.

Sure, cocaine can cause hyperthermia. She was also on phenelzine, which has a known interaction with meperidine that includes hyperpyrexia and seizures. She also got Haldol, so NMS - also manifesting with hyperthermia and seizures - is a possibility also. Could have been any of the above or a combination.

dragonfly99 said:
I believe that when they investigated, they found that the intern didn't know what to do anyway...I mean if you don't have the knowledge, then being too tired may not be the major issue.

I'm not sure knowledge is the issue here. I would guess that most interns have heard of NMS; prior to the advent of computer systems with automatic checking of drug-drug interactions I'd be really impressed if a busy intern could think of the phenelzine-meperidine thing off the top of her head. And I guess nobody got a UTox on the pt at the time (again, easier pickup in hindsight).

The thing about intern year is, you may not know a lot of stuff but you can usually pretty well assess whether someone is Sick or Not Sick. If they're Sick and you don't know wth is going on, you call your senior. If they don't know, you call your attending. It's not a bad system, but it only works if you actually see the patient.


LADoc00 said:
maybe we need STAFFING LIMITS and not ridiculous work hour limits.

Yeah, I agree this sounds like a staffing issue more than a work hours issue. Yeah I can think of a lot of things the intern should have done - ask for vitals and assess the patient in person for starters - but if her pager was going off every 30 seconds with people crumping right and left you can kind of guess why she didn't do that.
 
then you would have been still working insane hours. HOw would you like that?

I wouldn't like it at all. We are benefiting from it. But that isn't really the point. Zion accused the healthcare system for the death of his daughter. In fact drugs killed his daughter and the healthcare system was only guilty of not being able to save her from the predicament she put herself in. If we are going to revise residency hours let's do it for a real reason rather than be bullied by a lawyer/journalist for something healthcare isn't to blame for. Do it for the handful of folks who crash up their cars driving home on no sleep -- that's where the risk really lies of the long hours.
 
I don't know how you would disentangle all the factors.
...

We don't have to disentangle it -- it was done for us. The jury heard both sets of experts and didn't buy the version that's on Wiki. That was the story put up by the Zion lawyers; the hospital painted a much more compelling story of a woman high on coke and who knows what else, coming from the hospital straight from a party. Which is why the jury felt that the victim was at least equally to blame for her demise (which, given the resources brought to bear by the plaintiffs was tantamount to a loss). Hard to say sleep was a real issue here -- Unclear what the resident would have done differently had she been well rested, but of course that was played up in court by the plaintiffs.

I think this is a good example of why you need to be careful when you rely on Wiki, given that it's entries are only as accurate as the folks who type it in, and in this case it seems more speculation than fact and ignores the cocaine toxicology.
 
Last edited:
We don't have to disentangle it -- it was done for us. The jury heard both sets of experts and didn't buy the version that's on Wiki. Which is an example of why you need to be careful when you rely on Wiki, given that it's entries are only as accurate as the folks who type it in.

I hope you realize that the legal record is just that - the record for purposes of the law. It doesn't necessarily represent the actual truth.

And tr is in psychiatry and knows a thing or two about NMS and serotonin syndrome.
 
We don't have to disentangle it -- it was done for us. The jury heard both sets of experts and didn't buy the version that's on Wiki. That was the story put up by the Zion lawyers; the hospital painted a much more compelling story of a woman high on coke and who knows what else, coming from the hospital straight from a party.

That's the thing about a lay jury. They're stuck relying on 'expert testimony' because they don't have the decade of medical education it would require to actually form a knowledgeable opinion based on the facts. It just comes down to whose lawyers spin a better story.

I'm not saying the jury was specifically right or wrong in this case because I don't know enough of the facts of the case myself.

I'm saying that the fact that a lay jury reached one conclusion or another means absolutely nothing to me in terms of which conclusion is likely to be right. It's just not a data point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A Life-Changing Case for Doctors in Training

. . . she was an 18-year-old college freshman with a high fever and mysterious jerking movements. She was alternately cooperative and agitated. She had a history of depression and was taking phenelzine, an antidepressant.
But Libby became more agitated. When notified of this, the first-year resident who had evaluated her, Dr. Luise L. Weinstein, ordered physical restraints as well as a shot of haloperidol, another sedating medication. Busy covering dozens of other patients, Dr. Weinstein did not visually evaluate Libby again. The second-year resident on the case, Dr. Gregg Stone, had gone across the street to try to get a few hours of sleep, as was customary at the time.

I haven't read about the details of this case before, but, it seems that the intern was very busy, while her second year resident was getting "a few extra hours" of sleep. I don't know how it worked back then, but when an intern is up on call getting swamped now, the second year resident will help with admissions or at least take a bird's eye view of the situation and follow-up on patients as well. These days more of the buck stops with the senior level residents on an internal medicine service as they are expected to supervise the interns, and supervise them well AND help out when admissions are out of control and there are very sick patients.

Nowdays, staying up all night for a 24 or even 30 hour shift is no big deal, plenty of residents and interns do this on internal medicine services. It seems to me that if the second year resident knew he wouldn't have to pull a 36 hour shift then he would have been up all night. I think what would have helped this patient most would be more frequent checks and observation.

For my experience, an 18 year with apparently acute change in mental status, fever, and "jerking" movements is a critical patient and would need a higher level of care, partly as they could injure themselves, and partly because of an underlying process as yet defined which could lead to these pretty drastic changes. I would have been very concerned about meningitis, or even a sepsis type picture, and would have been doing a whole lot of cultures and following of her vitals signs (albeit this is 20/20 hindsight, she does seem like a very sick patient, no??).

Anyway, no doubt I think more frequent observation, i.e. high level of nursing care would have caught the rise in temperature, and acute mental status change in a young patient is a big concern and should be followed by a resident in most of these situations at least every 3 hours or so.

The whole issue of issuing restraints and vitamin H seems like the patient was treated like a psych patient when she a more organic cause of her AMS, regardless, once you order restraints on a patient this is a big deal and requires presence during this and maybe half and hour later to see what is going on. I have heard of more than one case of a person dying in restraints.
 
That's the thing about a lay jury. They're stuck relying on 'expert testimony' because they don't have the decade of medical education it would require to actually form a knowledgeable opinion based on the facts. It just comes down to whose lawyers spin a better story.

I'm not saying the jury was specifically right or wrong in this case because I don't know enough of the facts of the case myself.

I'm saying that the fact that a lay jury reached one conclusion or another means absolutely nothing to me in terms of which conclusion is likely to be right. It's just not a data point.

The jury was presented with two different stories, both theories of the case were presented by medical experts (moreso than the lawyers). While they may not have been well positioned to judge on the science, they were the best suited to determine the facts. In our legal system we have juries determine the facts and they do a great job more times than not. Juries are actually quite good at deciding which set of facts are true in this kind of case. They didn't like the plaintiff's view of the case. It's not about spinning the story. In fact, the plaintiffs had far more resources and more high profile lawyers, and were representing a victim, a young woman, against a deep pocket hospital, and still effectively lost. It turned on the juries deciding of the facts, not the lawyers spinning the story. You give the lawyers here too much credit, and put too little weight on the facts as determined by the jury IMHO. The finding of fact IS a data point.
 
The jury was presented with two different stories, both theories of the case were presented by medical experts (more so than the lawyers).

Right, but who chooses the medical experts? You could probably find one MD to support any theory you wanted, even if 99% of the rest of the population of MDs would disagree. But the jury doesn't get to know about the other 99%.

So you end up with two 'expert witnesses,' one from each side, giving different opinions. How is a jury with no medical background supposed to decide which one is right?

If juries were reliable evaluators of scientific and medical evidence we wouldn't have outcomes like the OJ Simpson trial (where damning DNA evidence was ignored) or people like Jon Edwards winning millions of dollars by claiming that L&D docs are responsible for cerebral palsy.
 
Right, but who chooses the medical experts? You could probably find one MD to support any theory you wanted, even if 99% of the rest of the population of MDs would disagree. But the jury doesn't get to know about the other 99%.

So you end up with two 'expert witnesses,' one from each side, giving different opinions. How is a jury with no medical background supposed to decide which one is right?

If juries were reliable evaluators of scientific and medical evidence we wouldn't have outcomes like the OJ Simpson trial (where damning DNA evidence was ignored) or people like Jon Edwards winning millions of dollars by claiming that L&D docs are responsible for cerebral palsy.

The jury in the OJ case never got to the science in the case and determined the decision based on a non-fitting glove and the race card, so I say that's not a fair example. We will never know whether the jury could accurately determine the science after the battle of experts because they largely ignored it. The similar distraction put on by the lawyers in the Zion case was the topic of resident work hours, and the jury by and large didn't fall for it.

OBGYN cases are overblown -- sure you hear about the plaintiff victories, and how OBGYNs plan to leave the business, but never about the many more cases that are settled, dismissed or where the jury actually got it right. The cases you hear about are actually the minority. It's a big enough minority to make folks like Edwards rich, but he's simply playing the odds -- knowing he only has to win one case in a couple dozen to make bank. That doesn't detract from the fact that the rest of the couple dozen juries get it right.

Our system, where juries ar the determiners of fact, actually works quite well in this kind of case. It does force the physicians and lawyers involved to explain medical concepts at a lay level, but most of the time this is possible. Certainly the concepts of drug interactions versus cocaine were adequately explained, and the notion of a person being tired after a 30 hour shift isn't too abstract fo the lay public. IMHO this wasn't so science driven a case that a jury was inadequate. It just required the right expert to explain things to them. The jury bought one view of the case and not the other. It may have turned on who had the better expert, rather than the better story, but the economics and publicity involved all favored the side that lost, making me believe that they couldn't make their story palatable even with the best expert money could buy.

At any rate, the fact that Wikipedia doesn't even reference the theory of the case as it was actually determined should be disconcerting for folks who actually rely on Wiki as a resource.
 
<Originally Posted by dragonfly99
I believe that when they investigated, they found that the intern didn't know what to do anyway...I mean if you don't have the knowledge, then being too tired may not be the major issue. >

tr
<I'm not sure knowledge is the issue here. I would guess that most interns have heard of NMS; prior to the advent of computer systems with automatic checking of drug-drug interactions I'd be really impressed if a busy intern could think of the phenelzine-meperidine thing off the top of her head. And I guess nobody got a UTox on the pt at the time (again, easier pickup in hindsight).

The thing about intern year is, you may not know a lot of stuff but you can usually pretty well assess whether someone is Sick or Not Sick. If they're Sick and you don't know wth is going on, you call your senior. If they don't know, you call your attending. It's not a bad system, but it only works if you actually see the patient.>


tr, I actually have done an entire medicine residency so I know what it is like to be an intern. My hospital actually used a more traditional call system too (Q3 and Q4 hour 30 hour overnight call where you admit all night and crosscover up to 40-50 patients). I agree the intern should have called the senior, and I agree that the intern was likely very overworked. It IS hell to be in that type of situation.

I agree with some who have posted above that the level of overwork/too many patients is more important than the absolute number of hours worked. I would have much rather worked 31 hours with less crosscover on the overnight call vs. worked 29 or 30 with too many crosscover patients. I think the 80 hour work hours limits were overall a good thing, but were instituted for the wrong reasons. I agree that the main reason we should have work hours limits is resident safety...when I was a med student working up to 120hrs/week on ortho trauma surgery, I got into a fender bender on the way home from the hospital because basically I was almost asleep while driving. I think the 80 hour work hours limits are often applied in a knee-jerk and inflexible manner, which isn't good, particularly for surgical specialties, but not having any work hours limits at all leads to abuse of the residents by hospitals, whose motivation is to get the most work out of the house staff that they possibly can. I think caps on the number of crosscover patients would be more effective in promoting patient safety than further work hours limits...in fact, further work hours limits might lead to worse care at this point, since the limits might force one intern or resident to be covering even more patients.
 
The other thing that many are forgetting is how much medical education and supervision have changed in 25 years. Before the great expansion of managed care in the 80s and 90s, residents ran the hospitals. Ask some of your attendings what they were expected to do as residents back then. Attendings were not required to be in house for billing and they weren't that worried about suits either. Thus, everybody moved up a notch. Mid-level surgery residents were doing unsupervised surgery all night. In OB it was the R3 that was running the labor deck, including C-sections. Same with medicine and often with a greater inpatient volume. Add that all the scut that's now done by nursing, phlebotomy and respiratory.... Things certainly have changed since then.

Ed
 
I agree with part of dartneu. that if someone who was brought in with jerking movement , alternate agitated, with unstable vitals, that fits in critical care, i would assume the senior resident adviced the intern to call for a consult from ICU?? instead of taking care the pt by a regular floor team??Something is wrong from the beginning esp on triage the pt.When I was an intern, the senior would at least eyeball the pt after the discussion on treatment plan so to make sure everything is under control.It not about trusting the intern or not, it about making sure everything is in control.
 
bingo...maybe we need STAFFING LIMITS and not ridiculous work hour limits. Once again nothing I have seen leads me at all to believe this occurred because she was tired from lack of sleep. Admit less patients, have more residents, better yet have more boarded physicians on staff....but work hour limitations from this makes no sense.

ha ha then you would be on call twice as much if you want more people on call. the problem also lay in the nursing staff unable to diiferentiate between a real call and a bull**** call. so they call for everything.
 
I wouldn't like it at all. We are benefiting from it. But that isn't really the point. Zion accused the healthcare system for the death of his daughter. In fact drugs killed his daughter and the healthcare system was only guilty of not being able to save her from the predicament she put herself in. If we are going to revise residency hours let's do it for a real reason rather than be bullied by a lawyer/journalist for something healthcare isn't to blame for. Do it for the handful of folks who crash up their cars driving home on no sleep -- that's where the risk really lies of the long hours.
that is the point. You are saying he should have just laid down and accepted the death of his daughter. So what she was a coke head. There are many coke heads who come in in worse shape who make it out of the hospital alive. I dont wanna condemn this intern, but it was negligence on someones part. Ill venture to say if they paid more attention to her.. she would still be alive. Im saying she should have been in the icu to begin with but we are talking 1984.. who knows how common that was. Im saying she was overwhelmed. And she was overwhelmed because the hospital was looking out for their bottom line and didnt wanna hire more people to help her. and they paid for it. anyway, dont you understand we dont do anything we arent forced to do.. and he forced us to look at work hours and reform it. Kudos to him.
 
I agree with part of dartneu. that if someone who was brought in with jerking movement , alternate agitated, with unstable vitals, that fits in critical care, i would assume the senior resident adviced the intern to call for a consult from ICU?? instead of taking care the pt by a regular floor team??Something is wrong from the beginning esp on triage the pt.

It was 1984. I think you had to be quite a bit more sick back then to get into the ICU. Hell, even today she might not get into the ICU where I'm at. No pressors, no drips, no vent... You'd have a lot of convincing to do to get the ICU resident to accept that transfer.

-The Trifling Jester
 
It was 1984. I think you had to be quite a bit more sick back then to get into the ICU. Hell, even today she might not get into the ICU where I'm at. No pressors, no drips, no vent... You'd have a lot of convincing to do to get the ICU resident to accept that transfer.

-The Trifling Jester

Well, with this senario which sounds like delirium, at least would call a ICU consult, icu may not accept ( which is fine) but at least they may give suggestion cuz the intern didnot know what to do and the senior didn't really triage the pt correctly plus not really give sufficent supervision.
 
that is the point. You are saying he should have just laid down and accepted the death of his daughter. So what she was a coke head. ... anyway, dont you understand we dont do anything we arent forced to do.. and he forced us to look at work hours and reform it. Kudos to him.

Um no, that wasn't MY point. I'm saying that Zion should have focused blame where it belonged -- at the drug dealers who directly led to the death of his kid, and not made it his mission in life and in the media to attack the residency system that perhaps had nothing to do with the death of his daughter. A good set of reforms brought about for the wrong reason was still brought about for the wrong reason. He forced us to reform the hours, but largely ignored the "forcing us to look at them" part you suggest. (And as a result, created a ton of resistance and noncompliance). This was bullying for change, not based on any empiric evidence. Even to date, subsequent to the 80 hour work week revisions there isn't much data to support that any fewer deaths have occurred subsequent to the revision.
 
there isn't much data to support that any fewer deaths have occurred subsequent to the revision.
makes for happier docs albeit not too terribly happy
 
makes for happier docs albeit not too terribly happy

But at a huge financial cost to the hospital system. I doubt anyone would make this change just to make for happier doctors. The change was made because of claims that long hours were killing patients, and a lot of publicity/pressure based on this NY case in which long hours again probably didn't kill this particular patient. The post- 80 hour change data has not borne out the suggestion that slightly better rested doctors kill people less. Makes it hard to justify this or future changes (regardless of how happy such changes would make us).
 
Making medical decisions that affect someone's life after 30 hours of work with no sleep should be a felony.
 
you think someone who is walking around putting out fires for 30 hours non stop.. beepers going off every 30 seconds for some new disaster will have time or energy to even look up what they dont know. She prolly said the first thing that came to her mind, sounded good, the nurse agreed and she forged ahead in answering pages from other floors and to do other stuff. She didnt stop and say, oh man i have to check on libby zion.. or maybe she did but she didnt get a chance to.. Thats the problem.. There is too much work for one person to do. i was there..(not NY hospital) i was beat up every third night as an intern the whole year with no post call days off. Let me tell you something that **** is the worst torture that anyone can ever put you through. Im still seething about it. After getting the s h i t kicked out of you for 36 hours... you are pretty much delirious.

ANyway, well known case. Sidney zion is a hero. He did the right thing. There is a whole helluva lot more reform to be done in medicine and i wish more people had the fervor he had/has//

So true. I'm a psych intern who recently completed eight weeks of Q4 medicine wards. The fact is that the hospitals play Russian roulette every night when it comes to lawsuits, even now. If you are cross covering 50 patients, you may have one crumping right after another all night, pager going off repeatedly, and never make it to the 18YOF for re-assessment. The culture today really supports us (at least where I am) calling our seniors and being backed up, but has this always been the case? As a psych intern, would I have managed Libby differently? Yes, but if she were a more complicated OB/unit/peds/etc case, and I'm admittiing my own and cross covering 40 others, who knows what could happen? The hospitals get away with whatever they can and that's the bottom line.
 
In defense of Libby Zion...who WASN'T on coke in the 80's?
 
tr said:
I'm not sure knowledge is the issue here...
The thing about intern year is, you may not know a lot of stuff but you can usually pretty well assess whether someone is Sick or Not Sick. If they're Sick and you don't know wth is going on, you call your senior. If they don't know, you call your attending. It's not a bad system, but it only works if you actually see the patient.
tr, I actually have done an entire medicine residency so I know what it is like to be an intern.

No need to get huffy, 'you' above was used colloquially to mean 'one,' and I was just making a general observation about the fact that one doesn't actually need an above-average knowledge base to be a good intern. Not to imply that dragonfly99 or any other specific poster had or had not done an intern year. Sheesh.

Anyways, my point was that being a good intern has more to do with clinical judgement than with specific knowledge. In this case as I understand it, even if the intern had no idea what caused this pt to crump or how to treat it, she could still have saved the patient by assessing the situation and calling her senior.

But not if she was busy putting out fires elsewhere all night long. Hence my agreement with LADoc00 that this sounds like it was more about staffing limits than work hours.
 
tr, I'm not getting "huffy", whatever that means. Sorry if it came across that way. As you said, "sheesh!".

I agree that the evidence in this case points more to overwork, and less to being tired. I think the original 80hr work hours limits are/were a good thing, if not taken to the extreme. Personally, I'd rather have someone there 5 minutes overtime to do a good signout, vs. OTD 10 minuted earlier having given a crappy signout, and I really think it's better to work 30.5 hrs having gotten 4 hrs of sleep the night before, vs. 29.9 having gotten NO sleep, having done both of those things myself! I would rather see a cap on the number of cross-cover patients than see further reductions in work hours limits, or even "mandatory naps". We might not need enforced nap time if interns were only covering a reasonable number of patients...usually the thing that keeps the intern up all night with NO sleep is excessive cross-cover (at least on the medicine service).
 
We might not need enforced nap time if interns were only covering a reasonable number of patients...usually the thing that keeps the intern up all night with NO sleep is excessive cross-cover (at least on the medicine service).

Right on. We actually have a night float on the medicine service who does cross-cover after 10 pm, so the admitting team only has to do it for a few hours in the evening. It's a much better system (both for patient care and intern sanity) than having the admitting team do cross-cover all night.

The night float person stays on for a few weeks at a time, so they learn the patients reasonably well and can provide superior care to someone who is only on q4 and is trying to admit at the same time.

I have to say that those few hours of x-cover were absolute h3ll. It was always an indescribable relief when the night float came on at 10 and all you had to do after that was manage your own patients. I can't imagine trying to do an effective job with your own patients while continuing the x-cover all night.
 
I can't imagine trying to do an effective job with your own patients while continuing the x-cover all night.

What happens when you have too many IM patients to crosscover is that the new admissions don't get as much thought put into them. They just get an H and P, and basic orders (antibiotics, or serial cardiac enzymes if they were a chest pain patient, etc.). And the intern doesn't read up on his/her new patients, for the most part. The intern spends a lot of time just returning nurse pages, going to check on crosscover patients or to talk to their families, etc. If the number of crosscover patients is small (like <15 or so) this is doable and the intern can still have some focus on the new admits. However, if there are 50 crosscover patients or something, then the resident ends up having to do most of the thinking and pondering about the new patients, since the intern doesn't have time. I suppose the no night float systems teach some efficiency, and they definitely teach one to be physically tough (i.e. learn to deal with lack of sleep) but in hindsight I think it stifled my development as a diagnostician/problem solver somewhat as an intern. I do think that in those types of systems, the interns eventually catch up (learning-wise) during 2nd/3rd year of IM residency.
 
Top