The healthcare system in the United States remains a challenging issue for the country that is hard to manage in many of its aspects. Medical errors add an additional layer of complexity, as their resolutions often turn into lengthy processes with unclear decisions. The traditional approach to dealing with medical malpractices often includes high legal costs, stress situations for involved parties, and promotes the lack of transparency (LeCraw et al., 2018). It is essential to review the lawsuits that have significant implications for healthcare organizations and professionals to determine the necessary changes to the safety standards. In this paper, the case of a 51-year-old man receiving an improper dose of medication during a surgery will be used as an example of the application of laws defining organizational liability.
The details of the event paint a clear picture of insufficient safety protocols leading to a major fine. Both the hospital and the anesthesiologist were found guilty because they gave insufficient attention to the point of a potential major failure. As it was later revealed in the article, the hospital’s pharmacy made error in releasing medications in improper dosages (Capozzola, 2016). The individual responsible for this incident must have been able to physically assess that the dosage was too high, yet failed to do so. As with any traditional defense cases for medical errors, all parties denied their responsibility, although it did not save them from paying for the damage they had caused (Capozzola, 2016). Merely following the steps of a procedure automatically can lead to similar severe malpractices in which people continue to suffer.
The court ensured that the patient was fully repaid for his suffering and medical expenses. Both individual and methodological errors were recognized and led to a significant fine divided 60 to 40 between the hospital and the anesthesiologist plus his company (Capozzola, 2016). The decision made by the court sent a clear message to medical personnel. It is apparent that merely following the instructions is not a defendable case, as it is a duty of each professional to ensure that their tasks are performed correctly (Capozzola, 2016). The hospital invited a specialist that failed to deliver the quality of care at a reasonable level and caused significant damage to a patient.
I think that the hospital was found to be partially liable due to its permissive stance on the pharmacy’s practices that had the potential to harm patients. Moreover, it invited an anesthesiologist to an operation without ensuring that the protocols they follow promote the highest standards of patient safety. The risks involved in this liability case include the breach of patient safety and legality of the hospital’s pharmacy and the hired anesthesiologist’s actions (Showalter, 2020). An organization that fails to adopt adequate standards and policies can be accused of negligence. Hospitals are also responsible for the actions of their workers, as superior organizations have to monitor employees’ compliance with regulations (Showalter, 2020). These issues confirm the court’s decision that found the healthcare facility to be the primary offender.
The measures taken by both hospitals and healthcare professionals must ensure that every step is strictly limited in its potential risks for patients. However, such a safeguarding approach requires an extensive body of knowledge that cannot be successfully collected if there are barriers to open communication between stakeholders. A critical failure that can be derived from the case is the complete denial of liability by all involved parties. Merely acknowledging the fact that damage was done is insufficient. It is essential to create a clear path to resolving similar situations via in-depth analysis of an event’s timeline. A risk management department can be established for this task that will resolve all patients’ concerns and accept specialists’ malpractice reports (LeCraw et al., 2018). As of now, a defensive stance is only an option due to a tendency to find a guilty side, fine them, and forget about the incident.
Instead of blaming, future errors can be prevented by promoting autonomous reasoning instead of a pursuit of guideline procedures. Ensuring that a specialist does perform their task requires knowledge instead of simple manipulations performed almost automatically. Moreover, the identity of a person who made a medical error must be kept anonymous, as the blame can destroy their career even outside of the court’s room (Vento et al., 2018). Instead, they must be encouraged to speak freely with an injured party and their organization to provide a full picture of the situation.
In conclusion, it is necessary for organizations to prevent similar incidents by putting preventive mechanisms in place, as the expenditure from medical errors lies almost exclusively on them. This case shows how insufficient standards for patient safety can cause millions of dollars of damage to a healthcare organization from a single error. The hospital and the specialist were found liable for the damage that was caused, yet their denial reveals a critical failure in communication between stakeholders. In the future, medical errors must be openly discussed to develop policies that efficiently deal with risk factors, such as pharmacy-controlled dosages of potentially harmful medications.
References
Capozzola, D. D. (2016). Medication mix-up leaves 51-year-old patient with permanent brain damage after heart surgery. Healthcare Risk Management, 38(1). Web.
LeCraw, F. R., Montanera, D., Jackson, J. P., Keys, J. C., Hetzler, D. C., & Mroz, T. A. (2018). Changes in liability claims, costs, and resolution times following the introduction of a communication-and-resolution program in Tennessee.Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management, 23(1), 13-18. Web.
Showalter, S. (2020). The law of healthcare administration (9th ed.). Health Administration Press.
Vento, S., Cainelli, F., & Vallone, A. (2018). Defensive medicine: It is time to finally slow down an epidemic. World Journal of Clinical Cases, 6(11), 406-409. Web.