Bedside visit comes too late
A 22-YEAR-OLD MAN underwent a liver biopsy after being admitted to the hospital a week earlier with fever, chills, diarrhea, and general malaise. A number of specialists had seen him in the hospital because of abnormal laboratory studies, increasing fever, and a maculopapular rash over his trunk and face.
After the biopsy, the patient was dizzy and diaphoretic. His attending physician ordered hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, which were lower than earlier that day. Repeat testing showed a further decrease, prompting the physician to order 2 units of red blood cells.
Typing and cross-matching delayed the transfusion for several hours. Before it could be started, the patient was found unresponsive. When the attending physician came to the bedside, the patient had no palpable pulse. A code was called, but resuscitation efforts failed.
An autopsy found a small hole in the liver and 3500 mL of blood in the peritoneal cavity, as well as hepatitis with zonal and submassive necrosis, hemoperitoneum, and hypertrophy of the heart. An HIV test performed before the biopsy eventually came back positive.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM The attending physician and nurses were negligent in failing to respond to signs and symptoms of internal bleeding, including falling hematocrit and hemoglobin levels. The attending physician, who was at the hospital when the patient’s condition deteriorated, should have gone to the bedside and taken steps to prevent his death.
THE DEFENSE The patient had been stable overnight; a bedside exam was unnecessary.
VERDICT $1,815,658 Texas verdict.
COMMENT Considering the many demands on clinicians’ time, it’s easy to postpone a face-to-face evaluation of a patient after a procedure. In this case, such a delay cost more than $1.8 million. A laboratory test or nurses’ notes are sometimes inadequate substitutes for a physician’s evaluation.
Failure to investigate suspicious symptoms ends badly
A MAN WITH SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS SUGGESTIVE OF AORTIC ANEURYSM/DISSECTION—including chest pain, pericardial effusion, aortic regurgitation, and aortic dilatation—saw his physician, but the doctor didn’t order any tests, such as computed tomography (CT) with contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE).
Two weeks later, the 43-year-old patient returned to the physician, who noted left ventricular hypertrophy with pericardial effusion and mild aortic loop dilatation. Once again, the doctor didn’t order tests to rule out aneurysm/dissection.
Three weeks after the second office visit, the patient collapsed and was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. An autopsy indicated that the cause of death was cardiac tamponade resulting from an undiagnosed aortic dissection.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM The physician should have ordered a CT scan with contrast, an MRI, or a TEE, any of which would have confirmed an aortic aneurysm/dissection, mandating immediate admission to a hospital for surgery.
THE DEFENSE No information about the defense is available.
VERDICT $1 million Maryland settlement.
COMMENT Although many common conditions will resolve spontaneously, it’s hard to imagine temporizing in a patient with chest pain and presumed aortic dissection.