The issue of malpractice occurred at the hospital during a CT scan. The RT injected the contrast dye in a 68-year old plaintiff’s arm to diagnose a pulmonary embolism (Medical Malpractice Lawyers, 2019). As the dye was going into the arm, the plaintiff experienced severe pain. A few seconds later, the pain became unbearable, and the patient screamed to get out of the machine. The RT stopped the CT, concluded an infiltration, applied compress, and elevated the plaintiff’s arm (Medical Malpractice Lawyers, 2019). The case appeared to be the problem later when the plaintiff experienced muscular and neurological damage and developed a compartment syndrome of the right arm requiring surgery. The plaintiff filed a malpractice lawsuit and then appealed the summary judgment granted to the defendant hospital.
The identification of the root cause of this complicated case requires critical analysis. The five whys allow for the in-depth analysis of the problems that lead to the court trials. The initial question is why a reversed summary judgment appeared at all? The Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment because of the defendant’s negligent approach to the trial. The hospital’s main argument was that the expertise from a non-physician is not enough because the law states so, not because they personally think so. The defendant’s hospital admitted the material’s genuine issue at the hearing but still reiterated the argument that the plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to render an expert opinion (Medical Malpractice Lawyers, 2019). Such a basis was not enough for the appealing plaintiff who went to the appellate court. The next question arises as to why the hospital was not caring about the trial? They believed that they were right, and the malpractice case could not possibly harm the woman.
Then why did they believe that malpractice was not a serious matter? Mainly because the doctor did her job but without extra caution, which was not supposed to cause any extra damage. The doctor did not intend to harm a patient, as she admitted her failure in visualizing the contrast on the monitor in her affidavit. The next question arises – why did she perform a CT without extra caution? The most apparent answer is that she ignored the plaintiff’s notice about the pain (Medical Malpractice Lawyers, 2019). Furthermore, why did the doctor not pay attention to the patient’s comment? Such neglect of medical practice is due to not following the medical ethics.
I agree with the plaintiff expert RT’s opinion about adequately handling the situation. He stated that the RT should have stopped injecting the dye when the patient told the doctor about the pain without waiting for her to start screaming to get out of the machine (Medical Malpractice Lawyers, 2019). Moreover, the RT should have notified the hospital’s radiologist about the infiltration to prevent the plaintiff’s implications.
Through the in-depth analysis of 5 whys, the root cause of the issue was established as defiance of ethical medical standards. The concern for the patient should be the primary goal for a doctor. The physicians should promote, advocate for, and strive to protect their patients’ health, rights, and safety (Olson & Stokes, 2016). The RT’s failure to prevent the plaintiff’s injury proved the lack of consideration for the patient.
I think the ordinary situation of contrast media extravasation has become increasingly complex because of the doctor’s lack of empathy or concern for the patient combined with the patient’s search for justice. The CMEV is a common complication of contrast-enhanced CT scan that rarely leads to any complications other than pain and swelling because of the low volumes of contrast media. In my opinion, the issue could have been solved if the patient felt cared for. Such a misunderstanding brought negative consequences to the hospital and the doctor and could have been prevented.
References
Olson, L. L., & Stokes, F. (2016). The ANA code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements: Resource for nursing regulation. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 7(2), 9-20.
Medical Malpractice Lawyers. (2019).