Introduction
Every decision made by medical practitioners with regard to their patients must be in the best interest of the latter so as to foster trust between the two, as the medical community rightfully accepts it. In some instances, however, medical negligence can shatter this trust, leaving profound consequences for the individuals involved. Such was the case of Amy Smith, who passed away due to her Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) as a result of gross negligence on behalf of her surgeon and the medical team, who did not prepare adequately for an SCD crisis. The case serves as an illustration of the potential ramifications of negligence in surgical procedures involving patients with pre-existing conditions. Malpractice, preventive measures, and the issues of liability and damages are critical aspects that demand scrutiny within the broader context of medical negligence.
Malpractice
In this situation, malpractice claims could potentially be based on several key factors. Firstly, the failure to act upon the physician’s warning about Amy showing signs of entering an SCD crisis during the blood transfusion constitutes a deviation from the standard of care. This neglect to promptly address a known risk for a patient with a pre-existing condition raises questions about the duty of care owed to Amy.
Secondly, the lack of action following the email communication, which contained crucial information on how to monitor and treat the patient for a potential SCD crisis, may be interpreted as a dereliction of duty (Fremgen, 2019). The medical personnel had a responsibility to act on the provided information to prevent harm. Lastly, the delayed diagnosis and treatment upon Amy’s readmission, leading to her cardiac arrest, can be considered as evidence of a direct or proximate cause that produced the injury. The failure to promptly recognize and address the SCD crisis, as previously indicated, directly contributed to the subsequent life-threatening events.
Preventive Measures
To prevent the outcome and uphold the proper standard of care, a comprehensive pre-operative assessment tailored to Amy’s disease should have been conducted. This would involve a meticulous review of her medical history, consultation with SCD specialists, and the formulation of a care plan to address potential surgical complications (Powers KC & Barton, 2023). Robust communication protocols were essential to ensure that critical information, such as the physician’s warning about impending signs of an SCD crisis, was swiftly communicated and acted upon by the surgical team. Postoperative care should have included intensified monitoring, and healthcare professionals should have been well-versed in recognizing signs of an impending SCD crisis. Overall, a proactive and communication-focused approach could have prevented the situation that took place in the case.
Liability and Damages
Liability could extend to multiple parties involved in Amy Smith’s care. The surgeon may bear responsibility for not taking appropriate action to prepare for a crisis during surgery (Fremgen, 2019). The hospital’s administrative staff and communication system could be deemed liable for the breakdown in conveying critical information from the physician to the surgical team.
The delay in diagnosing and treating Amy’s SCD crisis upon her readmission also implicates the healthcare providers involved in her postoperative care. In terms of damages, the family may pursue compensation for various losses, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and, potentially, wrongful death. The damages awarded would likely be contingent on the extent of the harm and the financial burdens incurred by her family.
Conclusion
To conclude, Amy’s case illustrates the damage that negligence can lead to in the treatment, particularly for patients with high risk in surgeries. Lack of attention to alarming signs and failure to consider vital information constitute an example of malpractice. Pre-operative assessment and preparation for potential consequences would have prevented the outcome. The majority of the medical personnel involved in Amy’s care could be held responsible, with her family being in the right to demand compensation for inadequate care leading to their daughter’s passing.
References
Fremgen, B. F. (2019). Medical law and ethics (6th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
Powers KC, M., & Barton, A. (2023). Clinical negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.