(x-post from allopathic) ER doc loses Malpractice case

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

Zebra Hunter

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
773
Reaction score
1,456
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article82946017.html

Hughes had learned many years before, directly after her first daughter was born, that she suffered two blood-clotting disorders: Factor V Leiden, which could cause clots in veins, particularly during pregnancy, and Protein S deficiency, which also causes blood to clot quickly.

After three children, Hughes understood the care she needed to take. She went to her obstetrician, who had previously treated her high-risk pregnancies. She followed the recommendation to use a blood thinner. A lab monitored her blood readings.

“I knew what I was doing,” Hughes said.

Then, at about 35 weeks, agonizing pain struck her right side. She’d been coughing because of bronchitis and had been put on antibiotics and given an inhaler. But this went beyond coughing pain.

“I could hardly move, it hurt so bad. I could hardly stand it,” said Hughes, who called her doctor. “He said, ‘You probably pulled a muscle.’”

But by 10 p.m. that Sunday, Sept. 19, Hughes was in such intense pain that she telephoned her mother, Harriett Ellis, who drove from her home in Excelsior Springs. Soon they were on their way to the E.R.

In the hospital
Hughes was worried about her baby when she arrived at North Kansas City Hospital.

Questions arose over whether she should first be seen in the E.R. or, because of the pregnancy, immediately go to labor and delivery to be checked and monitored.

The E.R. took the case. Sunday night rolled into Monday. Shortly after 1 a.m., Niedens, the E.R. physician, examined Hughes and ordered lab tests and a sonogram. She was made aware of Hughes’ clotting conditions and knew she was on a blood thinner. Tests showed her blood was not clotting quickly at all.

The doctor correctly diagnosed the problem: Hughes had gallstones and a hematoma, essentially a pocket of blood, on the inside wall of her abdomen.

“That was exactly right,” said Hagen, one of Hughes’ lawyers.

The issues of medical malpractice and wrongful death would arise from what happened next. In court, Hagen and Dameron argued that the standard way to know whether a hematoma is expanding or receding is to check its size with one or more additional sonograms.

“You have to monitor the mom,” Hagen said.

Instead — after a consultation with the doctor on call at Hughes’ obstetrical group — Niedens discharged the expectant mother with a prescription for pain pills. Tackling the gallstones would have to wait until the baby had been born.

Hughes arrived home about 5 a.m. Monday. She had an ob/gyn exam scheduled for 9 that morning. But because she was exhausted and had just left the hospital, she missed the appointment, a point the defense would raise in court.

Hughes remained in tremendous pain.

The next morning, Tuesday, Sept. 21, she failed to answer the phone. Brooke, her stepdaughter, became worried and headed to the home. She found her mother ashen, almost unresponsive. A short time later, an ambulance was speeding Hughes back to the E.R. at North Kansas City Hospital.

“She had lost more than 50 percent of her blood volume,” Hagen said. “She was dying. Her kidneys were shutting down. Her brain was affected.”

The hematoma on her abdominal wall had not shrunk. Instead, it had grown from the size of a fist to about the size of a volleyball; her tissue was filling as she was bleeding internally. From the E.R., she was admitted to the intensive care unit.

“She was fighting for her life,” Hagen said. “A minister came and gave her last rites.”

Hughes lived, but she was told her baby was dead.

“Chayden died of asphyxiation,” Hagen said. No blood flow, no oxygen.

Hughes’ labor, induced, lasted eight hours.

“I have a foggy memory,” she said recently. “When he did come out, I waited for him to cry. He didn’t. I waited, and waited and waited. He was so perfect. He looked so normal.”

“But even doctors make mistakes,” said lawyer Kathy Hagen, who represented Hughes with colleague Russell Dameron of the firm Watson & Dameron. “When they make a mistake, there has to be justice.”

Members don't see this ad.
 
How the f*** was this a plaintiff victory?

The TL;DR for everyone who is interested is:
G3P2@36wks. Factor V leiden. Is on lovenox (or some other AC). Severe abd pain. Goes to ED. Doc orders a US and labs. US shows abd wall hematoma. ED doc calls on call OB/Gyn. They say go home and f/u in clinic. Pt sent home at 5am with 9am followup SAME DAY at OB/Gyn. Pt is too tired so misses the appointment. Found down later that day with massive expanding hematoma. Pt lives, baby dies. ED doc liable. Jury argues doc should have admitted pt for obs.

What... the... f*ck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Simple. Someone has to pay. It's not going to be the OB or the mom, so who is left?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
How the f*** was this a plaintiff victory?

The TL;DR for everyone who is interested is:
G3P2@36wks. Factor V leiden. Is on lovenox (or some other AC). Severe abd pain. Goes to ED. Doc orders a US and labs. US shows abd wall hematoma. ED doc calls on call OB/Gyn. They say go home and f/u in clinic. Pt sent home at 5am with 9am followup SAME DAY at OB/Gyn. Pt is too tired so misses the appointment. Found down later that day with massive expanding hematoma. Pt lives, baby dies. ED doc liable. Jury argues doc should have admitted pt for obs.

What... the... f*ck.

This is Bull****. I thought that in order for a lawsuit to occur, and to be victory, two things need to happen:

1. Gross negligence
2. Bad outcome

In this case, I see only one of those things (Bad outcome). The ER doc called the consultant, who OK'd for the patient to go home with close follow up the NEXT day. I can't see how this is negligence on the part of the ED doc. Sad.
 
probably got throw under the bus by the ob.

I don't think there is much protection by getting a consult and writing in the chart that so and so said to send the patient home.

At best you will probably both get named and share the loss (if it comes to that).

You can't do it on every case, but this is one where the ob has to come in and see the patient. If they won't or won't admit, hold them in the Er until the morning.

The plan was probably that the person had a follow up appointment in clinic in 4 hours, so that's a pretty safe dc. That's the worst part of this one to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
This is Bull****. I thought that in order for a lawsuit to occur, and to be victory, two things need to happen:

1. Gross negligence
2. Bad outcome

In this case, I see only one of those things (Bad outcome). The ER doc called the consultant, who OK'd for the patient to go home with close follow up the NEXT day. I can't see how this is negligence on the part of the ED doc. Sad.

We all know that lawsuits are determined by emotions, not by medical facts or justice
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This kind of reminds me of "shared medical decision making". Leaving the onus on the patient to follow up (this is a critical decision the patient has to do themself) puts all sort of risk into the equation. Also, we don't always have to listen to our consultants. I would have probably sent this patient to the obs unit and told OB to see in the morning. However, I'm at a tertiary academic ED.

I'm sure everyone has a story where the consultant's plan didn't match our own gestalt of what we felt was right, we went with our plan, and it saved patient morbidity/mortality. The obstetric population is especially risky (along with anyone otherwise young and healthy) and I would always err on the cautious side when dealing with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What kind of repercussions is this going to have on this docs career from here on out?
 
To put this another way, this was a patient with potentially ongoing bleeding on anticoagulation that was discharged home and whose baby died as a result of that decision. A call to a consult doesn't really relieve you of not having made the appropriate disposition. This is a deeply unfortunate case but I'm suprised they didn't settle prior to trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To put this another way, this was a patient with potentially ongoing bleeding on anticoagulation that was discharged home and whose baby died as a result of that decision. A call to a consult doesn't really relieve you of not having made the appropriate disposition. This is a deeply unfortunate case but I'm suprised they didn't settle prior to trial.

Unfortunate and poor outcome. Feel badly for patient, for Ed doc and mostly for life lost. Agree with obs should have been final dispo.

However, shouldnt the mother have some onus of responsibility in this case? A close follow up was scheduled. 4 hours! What happened to her over that 24 hours?

If these close follow ups and warning instructions that we are arranging/writing/instructing are ignored, seems unjust to blame all on the doc.
 
Pregnant. On anticoagulants. Hematoma.

I would not have d/c'd this patient. I would have insisted that the OB come in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Outrage....exasperation......"how could this happen?"......"how could they be sued & lose....?" blah...blah....blah....

It doesn't matter what the doc did, or didn't do at this point. Was everything done right, everything done wrong, or somewhere in between? Hopefully everything was done perfectly right, every shift you and I work. But in the legal realm, it makes little difference. Don't waste your time even letting it rattle around in your head. This is our legal system. You'll get sued. You won't commit malpractice. YOU WILL GET SUED. You'll have lawyers to fight it for you and insurance to cover the expenses. If the outcome is bad enough, you'll have to settle the case and some money will have to be paid on your behalf, to get you out of the case.

But you all that voted for democrats/socialists for your idealistic reasons, and those that did before you, voted for this system and elected candidates that are pro-trial lawyer, anti-tort reform and "anti-rich guy" (that's you, if you didn't know, you've got the white coat, might as well be a black hat, because you're "rich guy/gal" as a doctor).

Millennials: you beg, beg, beg for an expansion of this system and a weakening of physicians hand in this system, as you back the Left wing. "Help the little guy! Soak the rich (yourself)!" You're voting for yourself to be the sacrificial lamb, fodder for the left, and for class warfare rage, jealousy and envy. The medical malpractice system is a perfect example.

Think next time, before you vote for politicians likes Obama & Hillary who are pro-trial lawyer, anti-tort reform, and who sell you out for votes as the "greedy rich" in a class warfare battle. They have, and will continue to throw you like sheep to the slaughter. Not only will they soak your bank account this way, they'll raise your taxes a few thousand more. Obama already did. Hillary will more.

$20,000-$40,000 per year comes out of your paycheck to ward off the malpractice lawyers even if you're the best doctor in your group, state or the whole country (or that amount comes out of the payroll money pool, at your company, and out of dollars that would otherwise be available to pay out to you per doc/per year at your CMG).

After the fact, the medicine matters little. The politics matter a whole lot. That's the underlaying reality. You may favor the left and the democrats for other reasons, but on the issue of malpractice and tort reform, they're catastrophic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 20 users
Let's be honest, seeing the OB in 4 hours and getting a repeat sonogram is a perfectly reasonable plan. That's also the same thing that would be done had this patient been admitted. She did not follow the plan. TORT REFORM... I'd find another state
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Members don't see this ad :)
To put this another way, this was a patient with potentially ongoing bleeding on anticoagulation that was discharged home and whose baby died as a result of that decision. A call to a consult doesn't really relieve you of not having made the appropriate disposition. This is a deeply unfortunate case but I'm suprised they didn't settle prior to trial.
The valid part of this post is the fact that a phone consult provides you zero liability protection. No see patient, no liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
How the f*** was this a plaintiff victory?

The TL;DR for everyone who is interested is:
G3P2@36wks. Factor V leiden. Is on lovenox (or some other AC). Severe abd pain. Goes to ED. Doc orders a US and labs. US shows abd wall hematoma. ED doc calls on call OB/Gyn. They say go home and f/u in clinic. Pt sent home at 5am with 9am followup SAME DAY at OB/Gyn. Pt is too tired so misses the appointment. Found down later that day with massive expanding hematoma. Pt lives, baby dies. ED doc liable. Jury argues doc should have admitted pt for obs.

What... the... f*ck.


I don't know, discharging someone with spontaneous, non compressible bleeding who is on blood thinners is sort of crazy. I just can't imagine sending this patient home. I am sure there must have been details that made the ER doc consider that this was the best course of action, but you just can't close your eyes to the facts that:

-she is bleeding
-while fully anti coagulated
-at a site that can't be compressed or monitored without imaging

I agree with the posters that say we can be hanged out to dry even if we do everything right, but from the information presented this does not seem like such a case.

Another take away from this is that sometimes you have to force your consultants to do the right thing. Especially when it's a phone consult. They are largely at the mercy of the way we tell the story. Regardless of the details, I can present almost any borderline case in such as way as to make it seem like no big deal or as an impending catastrophe. And that's a big part of our job, we shouldn't shirk from that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is bull****. If her vital signs r stable, ptt in a reasonable range and pain well controlled and consultant says dc and fu in 4 hours... I'd send this patient home... My consultants rarely come in and throw a hissy fit if it's at night... What a stupid legal world we live in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
It would be nice to know which EM doc the lawyers used as an "expert witness".

We must change this system from the inside.

HH
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
How the f*** was this a plaintiff victory?

The TL;DR for everyone who is interested is:
G3P2@36wks. Factor V leiden. Is on lovenox (or some other AC). Severe abd pain. Goes to ED. Doc orders a US and labs. US shows abd wall hematoma. ED doc calls on call OB/Gyn. They say go home and f/u in clinic. Pt sent home at 5am with 9am followup SAME DAY at OB/Gyn. Pt is too tired so misses the appointment. Found down later that day with massive expanding hematoma. Pt lives, baby dies. ED doc liable. Jury argues doc should have admitted pt for obs.

What... the... f*ck.

You think that one is bad? How about this one... [Bert Fish/EVAC OB case]
https://ems-law.net/2011/05/20/10-million-verdict-in-florida/
 
Unfortunate and poor outcome. Feel badly for patient, for Ed doc and mostly for life lost. Agree with obs should have been final dispo.

However, shouldnt the mother have some onus of responsibility in this case? A close follow up was scheduled. 4 hours! What happened to her over that 24 hours?

If these close follow ups and warning instructions that we are arranging/writing/instructing are ignored, seems unjust to blame all on the doc.

Next you're going to tell me that there shouldn't be a penalty for readmission for the acute on chronic heart failure patient who is not compliant with medications and dietary restrictions. Who needs personal responsibility? That's what doctors are for!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Obviously do not know the full details of this case. Maybe the hematoma was 0.5 x 0.5 cm. Maybe her PTT was only mildly elevated. Maybe the patient wanted to AMA. However, as presented in the article, it's a pretty slam dunk admission. I've admitted far less...
 
This kind of reminds me of "shared medical decision making". Leaving the onus on the patient to follow up (this is a critical decision the patient has to do themself) puts all sort of risk into the equation. Also, we don't always have to listen to our consultants. I would have probably sent this patient to the obs unit and told OB to see in the morning. However, I'm at a tertiary academic ED.

I'm sure everyone has a story where the consultant's plan didn't match our own gestalt of what we felt was right, we went with our plan, and it saved patient morbidity/mortality. The obstetric population is especially risky (along with anyone otherwise young and healthy) and I would always err on the cautious side when dealing with them.

This just goes to show that the whole "shared decision making" clap trap is just a pipe dream. I said in the other thread and stand by it - patients and lawyers only consider us super smart infallible doctors when something goes wrong. "Well you should have known better, you're a physician!".... All other times, Dr google knows better than we do.

I dunno. I graduate in 14 days. This was a bit disheartening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This just goes to show that the whole "shared decision making" clap trap is just a pipe dream. I said in the other thread and stand by it - patients and lawyers only consider us super smart infallible doctors when something goes wrong. "Well you should have known better, you're a physician!".... All other times, Dr google knows better than we do.

I dunno. I graduate in 14 days. This was a bit disheartening.


Failure to show up for the follow up should certainly mitigate (if not completely undermine) the verdict, but I'm not sure you can draw your conclusion from the information provided. Because we don't know that this was actually an instance of "shared decision making." If a) the doc offered admission for Observation, b) the patient declined, c) the doc arranged close follow up as an alternative and d) documented a-c, then this case would demonstrate that shared decision making offers very little protection. However, I didn't see any of that in the story.

I remain pretty comfortable with shared decision making. The caveat is that I mostly use SDM in cases where I expect the workup to be negative, and I'm doing the testing to cover my butt. I don't employ SDM on STEMI's or head-injured kids with a GCS of 11. Whereas I do employ SDM in chest pain patients with normal ECG's and negative troponins or kids with minor head trauma who had a questionable LOC, a single episode of emesis and have no physical exam findings.

Personally, I probably wouldn't use SDM in a late-term anticoagulated pregnant woman with a non-compressible hematoma who is requiring narcotics for pain control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Failure to show up for the follow up should certainly mitigate (if not completely undermine) the verdict, but I'm not sure you can draw your conclusion from the information provided. Because we don't know that this was actually an instance of "shared decision making." If a) the doc offered admission for Observation, b) the patient declined, c) the doc arranged close follow up as an alternative and d) documented a-c, then this case would demonstrate that shared decision making offers very little protection. However, I didn't see any of that in the story.

I remain pretty comfortable with shared decision making. The caveat is that I mostly use SDM in cases where I expect the workup to be negative, and I'm doing the testing to cover my butt. I don't employ SDM on STEMI's or head-injured kids with a GCS of 11. Whereas I do employ SDM in chest pain patients with normal ECG's and negative troponins or kids with minor head trauma who had a questionable LOC, a single episode of emesis and have no physical exam findings.

Personally, I probably wouldn't use SDM in a late-term anticoagulated pregnant woman with a non-compressible hematoma who is requiring narcotics for pain control.

Oh, agree. I typed a longer response in the other thread, didn't want to rehash. Case taken as is, I would have admitted - high risk of decompensation. Even IF she made that appointment, that late in the pregnancy with hematoma they would have turned her around for admission to LD I'd imagine.

My comment was to the broader point that sometimes, despite best efforts and good intentions, it's a scary prospect that little is expected of our patients when I comes to personal responsibility
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Quick question: the OB was contacted and had this appointment scheduled in their office.

Why are they not on the hook for failing to contact the patient after the no-show? ****ty documentation?
 
This is definitely a grey area case. I probably would have admitted or observed the patient in the ED for a repeat hemoglobin and/or ultrasound. Lets say she wasn't pregnant and you did a CT that showed active extravasation. Would you have sent her home? I wouldn't. So you assume the worst. At least at my shop, the major problem would be finding someone to admit her. Medicine is a terrible idea. OB doesn't really deal with this particular problem. General surgery won't want anything to do with a 36 week'er.

I mean, I'm in favor of some forms of tort reform, but the fact that the system is f'd does not mean that every plaintiff victory is automatically illegitimate. This particular one is certainly not a slam dunk either way. But no system run by humans will ever be perfect - people who should win their cases will lose sometimes, and people who should lose will win. You all think the idea that all medical conditions have a 0% appropriate miss rate is bullsh*t, right? Same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And if she did go to follow up, Her doc would go off! "How the beep did they DC you? I can't believe xyz..." "If the ER would have told me it was THIS bad..."

Baby likely still dead.
Her doc would come and chastise the director and whole group.
Mom would still sue the ER doc and still likely win.
 
Failure to show up for the follow up should certainly mitigate (if not completely undermine) the verdict, but I'm not sure you can draw your conclusion from the information provided. Because we don't know that this was actually an instance of "shared decision making." If a) the doc offered admission for Observation, b) the patient declined, c) the doc arranged close follow up as an alternative and d) documented a-c, then this case would demonstrate that shared decision making offers very little protection. However, I didn't see any of that in the story.

I remain pretty comfortable with shared decision making. The caveat is that I mostly use SDM in cases where I expect the workup to be negative, and I'm doing the testing to cover my butt. I don't employ SDM on STEMI's or head-injured kids with a GCS of 11. Whereas I do employ SDM in chest pain patients with normal ECG's and negative troponins or kids with minor head trauma who had a questionable LOC, a single episode of emesis and have no physical exam findings.

Personally, I probably wouldn't use SDM in a late-term anticoagulated pregnant woman with a non-compressible hematoma who is requiring narcotics for pain control.


I quoted "SDM" because while this doesn't appear to directly be SDM, it is similar in its intent. Telling the patient to follow up in 4 hours is putting a huge responsibility on the patient to follow through when dealing with a potentially life threatening condition. For all we know, the patient was "too tired" to go to the appointment, perhaps because her hgb was steadily dropping. This is very similar to a CT/FAST negative trauma patient with a seatbelt sign and persistent abdominal pain. You never discharge that patient because they could still have an occult intraabdominal bleed.

This is not the same as follow up you give to someone with an abscess s/p I&D because the worst that happens is it gets infected, slowly, over a few days. This is putting responsibility on the patient, but not as critical. As far as ACS SDM, documenting it is simply treating yourself, not the patient, and definitely not the lawyer.
 
I quoted "SDM" because while this doesn't appear to directly be SDM, it is similar in its intent. Telling the patient to follow up in 4 hours is putting a huge responsibility on the patient to follow through when dealing with a potentially life threatening condition. For all we know, the patient was "too tired" to go to the appointment, perhaps because her hgb was steadily dropping. This is very similar to a CT/FAST negative trauma patient with a seatbelt sign and persistent abdominal pain. You never discharge that patient because they could still have an occult intraabdominal bleed.

This is not the same as follow up you give to someone with an abscess s/p I&D because the worst that happens is it gets infected, slowly, over a few days. This is putting responsibility on the patient, but not as critical. As far as ACS SDM, documenting it is simply treating yourself, not the patient, and definitely not the lawyer.

Well you might think I'm a snooty a$$hat for this, but...what you should be worried about in a CT(-) seat belt sign case is undetected bowel injury leading to delayed peritonitis, not delayed hemorrhagic shock.

Otherwise, I agree with your post (this one and the original one in which you quoted SDM).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Well you might think I'm a snooty a$$hat for this, but...what you should be worried about in a CT(-) seat belt sign case is undetected bowel injury leading to delayed peritonitis, not delayed hemorrhagic shock.

Otherwise, I agree with your post (this one and the original one in which you quoted SDM).

Thanks for the correction, no offense taken!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Pregnant. On anticoagulants. Hematoma.

I would not have d/c'd this patient. I would have insisted that the OB come in.

That was my thought as well....goes to show you that curb siding a consultant doesn't necessarily clear you or spread liability around. Had that OB come in and done an H/P, perhaps the blame could have been shifted elsewhere.
 
Outrage....exasperation......"how could this happen?"......"how could they be sued & lose....?" blah...blah....blah....

It doesn't matter what the doc did, or didn't do at this point. Was everything done right, everything done wrong, or somewhere in between? Hopefully everything was done perfectly right, every shift you and I work. But in the legal realm, it makes little difference. Don't waste your time even letting it rattle around in your head. This is our legal system. You'll get sued. You won't commit malpractice. YOU WILL GET SUED. You'll have lawyers to fight it for you and insurance to cover the expenses. If the outcome is bad enough, you'll have to settle the case and some money will have to be paid on your behalf, to get you out of the case.

But you all that voted for democrats/socialists for your idealistic reasons, and those that did before you, voted for this system and elected candidates that are pro-trial lawyer, anti-tort reform and "anti-rich guy" (that's you, if you didn't know, you've got the white coat, might as well be a black hat, because you're "rich guy/gal" as a doctor).

Millennials: you beg, beg, beg for an expansion of this system and a weakening of physicians hand in this system, as you back the Left wing. "Help the little guy! Soak the rich (yourself)!" You're voting for yourself to be the sacrificial lamb, fodder for the left, and for class warfare rage, jealousy and envy. The medical malpractice system is a perfect example.

Think next time, before you vote for politicians likes Obama & Hillary who are pro-trial lawyer, anti-tort reform, and who sell you out for votes as the "greedy rich" in a class warfare battle. They have, and will continue to throw you like sheep to the slaughter. Not only will they soak your bank account this way, they'll raise your taxes a few thousand more. Obama already did. Hillary will more.

$20,000-$40,000 per year comes out of your paycheck to ward off the malpractice lawyers even if you're the best doctor in your group, state or the whole country (or that amount comes out of the payroll money pool, at your company, and out of dollars that would otherwise be available to pay out to you per doc/per year at your CMG).

After the fact, the medicine matters little. The politics matter a whole lot. That's the underlaying reality. You may favor the left and the democrats for other reasons, but on the issue of malpractice and tort reform, they're catastrophic.

I'm surprised this post got as many likes as it did and didn't piss anyone off. Lol.
 
That was my thought as well....goes to show you that curb siding a consultant doesn't necessarily clear you or spread liability around. Had that OB come in and done an H/P, perhaps the blame could have been shifted elsewhere.
the patient was there from midnight to 5... goood luck getting any consult in person in my shop during that time unless the patient is actively dying

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
 
That was my thought as well....goes to show you that curb siding a consultant doesn't necessarily clear you or spread liability around. Had that OB come in and done an H/P, perhaps the blame could have been shifted elsewhere.


A curb side (informal) consult gives no protection, nor shall it. If you want the official recommendation from a consultant, then put in an official consult. If you're curb siding someone and saying, "Hey, hypothetically given this case... what would you do?" and documenting, "Discussed case with so and so, recommends this," then not only are you not going to get any protection, but you're going to lose the ability to curb side a consultant. This does not bode well for your department throughput.
 
A curb side (informal) consult gives no protection, nor shall it. If you want the official recommendation from a consultant, then put in an official consult. If you're curb siding someone and saying, "Hey, hypothetically given this case... what would you do?" and documenting, "Discussed case with so and so, recommends this," then not only are you not going to get any protection, but you're going to lose the ability to curb side a consultant. This does not bode well for your department throughput.

I don't curbside anyone.
If I need help, I put in a formal consult.
It is a courtesy if I don't request them to come see the patient in the Ed. They are being paid to be on call, in many cases more than I am being paid to work the shift.
 
I don't curbside anyone.
If I need help, I put in a formal consult.
It is a courtesy if I don't request them to come see the patient in the Ed. They are being paid to be on call, in many cases more than I am being paid to work the shift.
I agree if it isn't a basic question. For example, from the inpatient side, 29 y/o female with terrible iron deficient anemia probably shouldn't be bleeding monthly, however I honestly have no clue which OCP would be appropriate. That, to be honest, is an appropriate curbside. "Pregnant, anticoagulated patient bleeding out on the inside"? Not so much.
 
Last edited:
AS a practicing ER attending , and someone who is the first person to defend the ER in most cases .... this case is pretty agregious.... A lady with abd wall hematoma, on anticoagulation that is high risk pregnant ?
THat pt should have been admitted without question . I dont care what the ob consult says. The responsibility of the patient is YOURS and YOURS alone with the pt is in the ER . Consulting for patients when the consult doesnt see the patient is absolutely worthless.
The pt lost 50 % of her blood volume in a matter of several hours and you all are blaming the mother for not making her ob consult after she left at 4, and the app is at 9 . Yea no S**t she didnt make it ,she was actively bleeding and was probably to weak lets see how you feel when you lose 50 percent of your blood volume in a couple of hours. What the heck is the OB doc going to do 4 hours later except send her right back to the ER . A four hour obs period could have been done in the ER , and its quite unreasonable for a doc to expect a pt to make that appointment. Did she trend hemoglobin ? repeat ultrasound in several hours?
Interestingly enough if the doc had not ordered the ultrasound and did not know about the hematoma she would have had a better case.
And for the ER docs and potential ER docs use this case as a teaching moment , a curbside consult is useless. You are resonsible for the patient.Do what you KNOW to be right regardless of what the consulting phsyician says. You are the expert in emregencies (or should be). Do not pawn off your responsibility to consulting services. And do not let a consulting service dictate the care you feels the patient should have. You should never call a consulting service for "advice" asking "what should i do " or asking for their "opinion". You should call a consulting serivice becasue you know what the patient needs and you are unable to provide that service "ie admitting , surgery , specialized examination, etc"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Didnt read all of the response but I feel bad for the ER doc. Probably some new doc who just listens to the consultants believing that they would back him up if something bad happens. Or some doc that has been so whipped by constant fighting with consultants that they are too tired to put up many fights.

Was this Negligence on his part? I would say yes
Was the patient negligent for not following up? I would say yes, but you will never convince a jury that this matters much
Was the OB doc negligent? Yes, but they will disavow all knowledge of the case. I am sure their stance in court would be, "I told the ER doc that I would consult if he wanted me to come in"

Key point in this case as an ER Doc is
#1 - You have to have the balls to stand up for consultants. If all fails, trust your judgement. You can always watch the pt in the ER for the next 3-6 hrs with serial H/H and repeat US ultil they see the specialist in the am.
#2 - Never trusts the consultants. They change their tune 360 degrees when there is a lawsuit. Seen it too often. Most of us would prob do the same. Who wants to admit fault and get dragged in?
#3 - Find a good Tort reform state. That is right. I practice in Texas and this lawsuit would have been settled or the doctor would have won.

But back to the case and this is why the ER doc was negligent.
#1 - Pt with a bleed and no way to eval if it is expanding on exam
#2- Pt pregnant and adds another layer of complexity and potentially bad outcome (2 pts vs 1)
#3 - Blood thinners. If pt was on Coumadin or pradaxa would it change anything? I bet it would, so why do people fear pradaxa more than lovenox? Both can't be measured.
#4 - ER doc never evaluated if the baby was in distress. FHTs does not do it people. Where I work, all term mothers with almost any complaint, gets a 3-4 hr fetal monitoring or fetal stress test.

This lady was a time bomb waiting to happen. Even if she followed up with her OB as told in 4-5 hrs, she could have easily bled out before following up.

Would the ER doc have discharged an active GI bleed even if GI told him to discharge her? NO WAY. Why is this really any different?

At the end of the day, the pt and OB has to bear some responsibilities. The verdict Amount was way too much IMO given that the pt should have to bear some responsibility. If you take all of this away, the ER doc still sent a time bomb home without even a serial H/H. I bet if he just rechecked the H/H after 2-3 hrs, it would have dropped and they would have admitted.

I do alot of QA and always try to side of the MD side b/c there is alot of Gray in Medicine. But in this case, I would have rated it as a deviation from standard of care.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Didnt read all of the response but I feel bad for the ER doc. Probably some new doc who just listens to the consultants believing that they would back him up if something bad happens. Or some doc that has been so whipped by constant fighting with consultants that they are too tired to put up many fights.

Was this Negligence on his part? I would say yes
Was the patient negligent for not following up? I would say yes, but you will never convince a jury that this matters much
Was the OB doc negligent? Yes, but they will disavow all knowledge of the case. I am sure their stance in court would be, "I told the ER doc that I would consult if he wanted me to come in"

Key point in this case as an ER Doc is
#1 - You have to have the balls to stand up for consultants. If all fails, trust your judgement. You can always watch the pt in the ER for the next 3-6 hrs with serial H/H and repeat US ultil they see the specialist in the am.
#2 - Never trusts the consultants. They change their tune 360 degrees when there is a lawsuit. Seen it too often. Most of us would prob do the same. Who wants to admit fault and get dragged in?
#3 - Find a good Tort reform state. That is right. I practice in Texas and this lawsuit would have been settled or the doctor would have won.

But back to the case and this is why the ER doc was negligent.
#1 - Pt with a bleed and no way to eval if it is expanding on exam
#2- Pt pregnant and adds another layer of complexity and potentially bad outcome (2 pts vs 1)
#3 - Blood thinners. If pt was on Coumadin or pradaxa would it change anything? I bet it would, so why do people fear pradaxa more than lovenox? Both can't be measured.
#4 - ER doc never evaluated if the baby was in distress. FHTs does not do it people. Where I work, all term mothers with almost any complaint, gets a 3-4 hr fetal monitoring or fetal stress test.

This lady was a time bomb waiting to happen. Even if she followed up with her OB as told in 4-5 hrs, she could have easily bled out before following up.

Would the ER doc have discharged an active GI bleed even if GI told him to discharge her? NO WAY. Why is this really any different?

At the end of the day, the pt and OB has to bear some responsibilities. The verdict Amount was way too much IMO given that the pt should have to bear some responsibility. If you take all of this away, the ER doc still sent a time bomb home without even a serial H/H. I bet if he just rechecked the H/H after 2-3 hrs, it would have dropped and they would have admitted.


SHORT VERSION FOR ME WOULD BE THIS.
I could not go home without thinking about this case. I admit. May sound simplistic but this will serve many of the younger doctors well. I ALMOST NEVER go home worrying about a case. Admit is your friend, Obs is your friend, Having consultant lay hands is your friend, CT is your friend. You have alot of friends in the ED, use them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
the patient was there from midnight to 5... goood luck getting any consult in person in my shop during that time unless the patient is actively dying

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Turns out she was in this case.
 
A curb side (informal) consult gives no protection, nor shall it. If you want the official recommendation from a consultant, then put in an official consult. If you're curb siding someone and saying, "Hey, hypothetically given this case... what would you do?" and documenting, "Discussed case with so and so, recommends this," then not only are you not going to get any protection, but you're going to lose the ability to curb side a consultant. This does not bode well for your department throughput.
So how does one handle these situations? Ive seen so many times where the consultant only wants to curbside, and gets super pissed if they have to write anything. Ofc myexperience is very limited.

Sent from my SM-N910P using SDN mobile
 
So how does one handle these situations? Ive seen so many times where the consultant only wants to curbside, and gets super pissed if they have to write anything. Ofc myexperience is very limited.

Sent from my SM-N910P using SDN mobile
if youre really worried insist they come in. they have an emtala obligation as well. now if you do that on every consult at 3am... youre going to have some pissed off staff. its a fine line, i havent figured it out yet. almost 1 yr out.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So how does one handle these situations? Ive seen so many times where the consultant only wants to curbside, and gets super pissed if they have to write anything. Ofc myexperience is very limited.

Sent from my SM-N910P using SDN mobile
I thought it normally was, "Admit to medicine, I'll see him in the morning." :boom::diebanana:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
the patient was there from midnight to 5... goood luck getting any consult in person in my shop during that time unless the patient is actively dying

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
That's why God invented observation status....
if youre really worried insist they come in. they have an emtala obligation as well. now if you do that on every consult at 3am... youre going to have some pissed off staff. its a fine line, i havent figured it out yet. almost 1 yr out.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Admit to obs with medicine primary. Done.
 
That's why God invented observation status....

I've been told you can't bill for observation status if the purpose of the person staying is to allow them to be seen by a consultant at a more convenient time. This specific patient, of course, could be legitimately observed for repeat hemoglobin level and monitoring her condition for deterioration. But while you can keep someone in your ED overnight to be seen by whoever in the morning, you can't bill for the time if that's the only reason they haven't left.
 
I've been told you can't bill for observation status if the purpose of the person staying is to allow them to be seen by a consultant at a more convenient time. This specific patient, of course, could be legitimately observed for repeat hemoglobin level and monitoring her condition for deterioration. But while you can keep someone in your ED overnight to be seen by whoever in the morning, you can't bill for the time if that's the only reason they haven't left.
This is probably true, which is why you need to come up with some additional reason.
Pain, vomiting, etc. Usually these types of patients meet some other criteria for OBS.
 
This is probably true, which is why you need to come up with some additional reason.
Pain, vomiting, etc. Usually these types of patients meet some other criteria for OBS.
Agreed. It's hard to imagine that, in a patient you're worried about sending home, you couldn't justify the Obs status. Serial exams alone should be enough, and if you're that worried about someone, you should probably examine them more than once.
 
So how does one handle these situations? Ive seen so many times where the consultant only wants to curbside, and gets super pissed if they have to write anything. Ofc myexperience is very limited.

All of the places I work at now allow specialists to see the chart and imaging from home.

This, in my mind, provides a bit of midway point between dragging a consultant in at a horrible time and discharging a patient with all risk on the ED doc (since we know "discussed on the phone" doesn't cut it when it gets to review or court).

"Yes, Dr. Consultant: you are probably right and I defer to you ultimately. However, we keep hearing about cases in our department that have gone poorly or sub-optimally after phone consultations but no documentation. The administrators are getting on our case. How about if I discharge right after you write a note saying you reviewed the labs and imaging and have requested I discharge him? ...That will save me from hearing about this case later from the administrators and it saves you from having to come into the hospital and admit at this hour."

I actually got this idea from the CMO about a four months ago. I was working at community shop about 3 miles from the big trauma center and I had a splenic lac with hemoperitoneum. The surgeon didn't want to come in or admit -- he wanted it sent to the trauma center. The CMO felt it should stay with us and had me call the surgeon back and request he write a note from home saying that he reviewed the case (notes, imaging, labs) and felt he didn't need to come in. Problem solved!

HH
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Ham, I am curious once again as to whether that limits your liability. I honestly do not know, but I would guess that it does not. A home consult note still means that the buck stops with you if something goes wrong... i.e.: "Well judge, the ER doc called me from the ED and said the patient looked great and had no pain, I guess he must have passed on incorrect information, after all, he's the one seeing the patient. Had I had the chance to see the patient I probably would have been able to tell that he was dying, however, he did not ask me to see the patient."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top