Tag legalnurseconsultant

In this blog, I’ll be reviewing the national, and New York State statistics related to maternal mortality associated with obstetrical hemorrhage.  I’ll also highlight one of the risk factors associated with obstetrical hemorrhage, and discuss the standards of care that should be employed to mitigate the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality. 

Statistics: Obstetrical hemorrhage is a preventable cause of maternal morbidity and mortality and continues to be one of the leading causes of maternal death in the U.S.

How the U.S. compares to 10 other developed countries:

In New York State, postpartum hemorrhage is the 2^nd most frequently reported postpartum complication, and accounted for 29% (18) of maternal deaths between 2012-2013 according to the NYS Maternal Morbidity and Mortality Review Report (2017).

Prolonged oxytocin exposure as a risk factor: In a recent (published May, 2022) retrospective cohort study performed by Boston University School of Medicine, prolonged (greater than or equal to 12 hours) oxytocin exposure for induction of labor increased the risk of obstetrical hemorrhage by 52% compared to those women exposed for less than 12 hours.  Use of obstetrical risk assessment tools alert the perinatal team to the risk of obstetrical hemorrhage and prompts evidence-based interventions.

The importance of standardized safety bundles: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends the use of the Obstetrical Safety Bundle as a means to guide standardized management of obstetrical emergencies associated with maternal morbidity and mortality in accordance to evidence-based practice.  ACOG’s Safe Motherhood Initiative (SMI) focuses on the four leading causes of maternal death: maternal sepsis, obstetric hemorrhage (severe bleeding), venous thromboembolism (blood clots), and severe hypertension in pregnancy (high blood pressure).

The Obstetrical Hemorrhage Safety Bundle includes:

• Risk assessments: prenatal, antepartum, labor & delivery, and postpartum.
• Use of a staged obstetrical hemorrhage checklist to guide interventions in real-time.
• Team debriefing recommendations and a standardized debriefing form.
• Suggested standardized obstetrical hemorrhage tool kit.
• Recommendation to perform quantitative blood loss assessment (QBL) with every delivery.

The Joint Commission Perinatal Safety Standards: Effective January 1, 2021, the Joint Commission implemented new perinatal safety standards required of all Joint Commission accredited hospitals.   One of the new standards aims to improve care for women experiencing maternal hemorrhage.  The Joint Commission requirements focus on evidence-based written procedures, education, training, and drills for staff and providers, education for patients and families, and quality review.  The requirement also focuses on evidence-based risk assessments and hemorrhage supply kits. 

References:

ACOG’s Obstetrical Hemorrhage Safety Bundle. https://www.acog.org/community/districts-and-sections/district-ii/programs-and-resources/safe-motherhood-initiative/obstetric-hemorrhage

MedPage Today. 2022. https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/acog/98676

NYS Department of Health. 2017. NYS Morbidity and Mortality Review Report

OECD Health Data. 2020

P.S. Comment and share your experience with a maternal death case associated with obstetrical hemorrhage. What were the deviations in the standards of care? 

When is missed or delayed colorectal cancer (CRC) considered negligence?

In this blog, I’ll be reviewing the elements that are reviewed to identify if a missed, or delayed CRC diagnosis constitutes negligence.  I will also provide some examples of breaches in the standards of care specific to missed CRC cases.  As a means to promote greater awareness of colorectal health, and CRC awareness, I will also share current statistics, screening recommendations from authoritative sources, risk factors for CRC, and CRC symptoms.

Evaluating your CRC Case for Negligence / Mitigating Risk for Medical Negligence:

Having an awareness of the current standards of care, and rendering care in accordance to current standards of care specific to risk-based screening, and treatment reduces the risk of medical negligence.  A missed or delayed diagnosis of CRC is associated with greater morbidity and mortality.  Literature suggestions that delays in diagnosis are related to avoidable factors, such as improving the quality of bowel preparation, ensuring further investigations in patients with incomplete endoscopies, and colonoscopies, having endoscopies performed in accredited endoscopy centers, and timely follow up when non-cancer pathology is identified.  

Secondary to the fact that 2%-6% of CRC cases are missed following colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend counseling patients about this “miss rate.”

When evaluating a missed CRC diagnosis case for negligence, the four legal elements of negligence must be proven:

1. Duty: Did the defendant have a duty to the plaintiff?
2. Breach of Duty: Did the defendant fail to deliver care that an ordinarily careful, reasonable, and prudent person would do under the same or similar circumstance? Were there acts of omission related to the standards of care being met?

A. Failure to identify that the patient was at high risk for CRC.

B. Failure to recognize the patient’s symptoms as a risk factor for CRC.

C. Failure to order CRC screening.

D. Failure to include CRC in the differential diagnoses.

E. Failure to order appropriate tests, and/or referrals following a diagnosis of CRC

3. Damages & Injuries: Were there damages or injuries, such as economic and non-economic damages, that the plaintiff is alleging?

4. Causation: Did the acts of the defendant cause the damages, or injuries that the plaintiff is claiming?

Statistics:

• CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and women combined in the U.S.
• CRC is the second leading cause of cancer death in men and women combined in the U.S.

Estimates for 2022:

• 151,030 people will be diagnosed with CRC in the U.S.
• 52,580 people will die from CRC in the U.S.

Young-onset CRC is on the rise

• Rates for people under 50 increased 2.2% each year
• Median Age of Diagnosis: Age 66 (both men and women)
  

Screening:

All men and women without a family history, or risk factors for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin CRC screenings at age 45, according to the American Cancer Society.

With screening, CRC is one of the most preventable cancers, and highly treatable if caught early.

If you have certain risk factors, you may need to be screened earlier than 45.

Risk Factors:

• Family history of CRC or polyps
• African American
• Have a genetic link to CRC such as Lynch Syndrome
• Have a personal history of cancer
• Have ulcerative colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or Crohn’s disease

Types of screening chart

Symptoms: CRC often does not cause symptoms early on.  When symptoms do occur, they may include: 

• Change in bowel habits such as diarrhea and/or constipation, a change in the consistency of your stool, or stools that are more narrow than usual.
• Persistent abdominal discomfort such as cramps, gas, or pain. Feeling full, bloated, with or without  nausea & vomiting.
• Rectal bleeding.  You may notice blood in or on your stool that is bright red, or the stool may be black, tarry, or brick red.
• Weakness and/or fatigue associated with anemia (a low red blood cell count).
• Unexplained weight loss

References:

Colorectal Cancer Alliance. (2022). American Cancer Society’s Cancer Statistics Center and Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2020-2022.

Hayes B., et al. (2019). Why are we missing colorectal cancer? A study investigating the cause of delays in diagnosis. BMJ Journal. 68:A190

P.S. Comment and share your experience with reviewing the standards of care to develop your delayed or missed CRC diagnosis case, while considering the “miss rate.”

Facts found within the electronic medical record (EMR) and electronic health record (EHR), or missing from either source, can strengthen or weaken a medicolegal case.  Having an understanding of the EMR and EHR is crucial to the discovery process.   In this blog, I’ll be addressing the differences between the EMR and EHR.  I will also share EMR and EHR elements to consider for discovery. 

Differences Between the EMR and EHR: The EMR is an electronic record of health-related information on an individual that can be gathered, stored, managed, and consulted by authorized clinicians and staff within one healthcare organization.  The EHR is also an electronic record of health-related information on an individual, however, it must conform to nationally recognized interoperability standards.  The EHR can be created, managed, and consulted by authorized clinicians and staff across more than one healthcare organization (McBride et al., 2019).

Discovery: Discovery involves procedures for obtaining information (admissible to trial) from other parties, and witnesses prior to trial. 

Objective: The purpose of discovery is to get the facts, narrow down the issues of the case, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the case, plan a trial strategy, or negotiate a settlement. 

Having someone knowledgeable about the EMR and EHR systems on the legal team proves to be a valuable approach to success.  The reason for this is that there are many elements of the EMR and EHR to consider in the process of discovery. McBride et al., (2019) references that there are unintended consequences of missing the patients story secondary to “data noise.” These unintended consequences include patient morbidity, poor outcomes, and even death.  The problem is that there is so much EMR/EHR data.  Professionals need to know where to find the needed (or missing) information in the EMR and EHR, both within clinical and legal practice.    

Elements of the EMR and EHR to Consider for Discovery (including, but not limited to:)

• Name of EMR/EHR, EMR/EHR version, vendor representative contact, technician support service member contact
• Each component part, section, sub-section of the systems
• When the EMR/EHR system was originally implemented and when any upgrades were installed
• The programs capabilities and limitations, how and where entries are made, who can make entries, how dates and times are entered, who has access to the EMR/EHR
• Does the EMR have pre-set standard responses (E.g., automatic times for medication administration), are templates used for the pre-set standard responses, number of templates created or used to create the EMR
• Are electronic signatures (e-signatures) used,  if so which health care providers (HCPs) are assigned and use e-signatures, do medical and nursing staff share signature blocks, does the facility and/or provider have a policy specific to the use of signature blocks and passwords
• Is there a requirement to verify entries of unlicensed staff, if so, which entries must be verified
• Is there a policy specific to making corrections to the EMR/EHR
• Is the EMR, or section of the EMR printed, is so when (E.g., daily, or at the end of admission)
• How is the EMR/EHR secured, who is responsible for security
• Downtime policies (precautions to secure the EMR/EHR, as well as policies specific to documentation)

P.S. Comment and share how the presence, or absence of specific documentation either bolstered or weakened a recent case.

P.P.S. Comment and share if strong knowledge of the EMR/EHR system was able to better support your case.

Reference:

McBride S., & Tietze M. (2019). Nursing informatics for the advanced practice nurse. Patient safety, quality, outcomes, and interprofessionalism. (2^nd ed.) Springer Publishing Company.