Medical cockups: more common than officially recognised?

Wibbs · 17-04-2010 02:50PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

i didnt ask you had they messed up i asked you how do you know they were unprofessional?

because they messed up is not an answer

I agree, but we're arguing over semantics a bit too.

Someone can be acting in good faith and professionally and cock up. Of the cases I have been close to, a pure lack of professionalism was the issue in one case. The rest were cockups.

Kurtosis · 17-04-2010 03:03PM

biko wrote: »

Medical cockups have a scientific name: "Iatrogenic disease"

Hmmm, not strictly speaking. While medical cockups would be covered by iatrogenic disease, it can also arise from perfectly legitimate and appropriate medical treatment, for example drug side effects.

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 03:12PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree, but we're arguing over semantics a bit too.

Someone can be acting in good faith and professionally and cock up. Of the cases I have been close to, a pure lack of professionalism was the issue in one case. The rest were cockups.

ok this might help explain my point

every summer i work in the states as a parachute packer(this is actually true) and i pack thousands of parachutes over 3/4 months

i am good at it

no matter how good i am there will still be parachutes that dont open. i do the same thing over and over again day in day out but one i a thousand(thats been the ratio so far for me anyway) still have a malfunction and dont open. this does not make me unprofessional or neligent(and i know you understand this wibbs im trying to make the op understand)

Son Of A Vidic · 17-04-2010 08:58PM

I've been in the business and the old boys network is alive and well. They're great at circling the wagons when need be. A good friend of mine in London was forced out of his job for 'blowing the whistle' on an incompetent surgeon. My mate was an Anaesthatist and he eventually ended up moving to Australia, because his career in the U.K was virtually ended by his honesty.

astrofool · 17-04-2010 09:10PM

All incidents should be reported, but then, a doctor should be able to warn a patient that they will always be using their best judgement, and that judgement will sometimes be wrong, and cause massive problems for the patient. Limits should be set on payouts when things go wrong.

Otherwise we risk destroying the medical industry completely via lawsuits, it won't be worth anyone's time to practice medicine.

drkpower · 17-04-2010 09:13PM

astrofool wrote: »

All incidents should be reported, but then, a doctor should be able to warn a patient that they will always be using their best judgement, and that judgement will sometimes be wrong, and cause massive problems for the patient. Limits should be set on payouts when things go wrong.

Otherwise we risk destroying the medical industry completely via lawsuits, it won't be worth anyone's time to practice medicine.

Out of interest, what do you think the limits are now or what they should be? There is an extraordinary ignorance of what 'payouts' people get and what those 'payouts' are for.

astrofool · 17-04-2010 09:38PM

It's human life, it's always going to be hard to put a figure on. However, the figure should be the extra cost burden of the mistake, and paid out over their lifetime (imo). We have to start to accept that getting medically treated for anything is a risk, but not getting medically treated at all is a much greater risk.

RolandIRL · 17-04-2010 10:48PM

Yes, and I/they chose to report it

yes.
i was getting an ingrown toenail removed and the surgeon didn't remove the bed of the nail (which he should have). so i was stuck with an infection in my toe for months.
[/sobbing so much] i've been so traumatised by this experience [/sobbing so much]

well, i couldn't play sport for ages, and spent mucho money on bandages, gauze wrap, and the like. i know it's only minor but my toenail is permanently f**ked and it has grown at all since i got the bed removed, it's just a deformed looking toenail.

i have to go.... i'm shocked with all this trauma of explaining... :P

galwayrush · 17-04-2010 10:52PM

Yes, and I/they chose to report it

From personal experience, definitely yes.:(

token56 · 18-04-2010 01:13AM

Personally yes, in terms of unprofessional like conduct. It was not reported by me but a nurse at the time said she would be making a formal complaint about what happened. I never checked it up as it was not really something that was worth the hastle, but I dont know if there ever was a complaint made or a wrap across the knuckles given. The whole issue is related to mental health care which in my opinion is absolutely dreadful at the moment but that is a topic for another day.

Within my family, well there was a significant cock-up made in a simple procedure on my sister, which lead to an extremely serious complication, and has left a perminant effect of her. Was this just human error or negligance on the part of the doctor? Both himself and our family know it was negligance, it was or less but not directly admitted and was very evident anyway. But it would be extremely difficult to prove in court and despite the doctor knowing he was at fault he wouldn't have just admitted had it been his career on the line which is fair enough, I can understand that. For this reason it wasn't offically reported or anything, but you can be guarnteed behind the scenes the doctor was given a good wrap across the knuckles anyway.

In general I would have pretty serious concerns regarding the quality of some doctors in one particular hospital at least, this is just from my own and my families personal experience.

drkpower · 18-04-2010 01:21AM

token56 wrote: »

Both himself and our family know it was negligance, it was or less but not directly admitted and was very evident anyway. But it would be extremely difficult to prove in court and despite the doctor knowing he was at fault he wouldn't have just admitted had it been his career on the line which is fair enough, I can understand that. .ut you can be guarnteed behind the scenes the doctor was given a good wrap across the knuckles anyway.

So, it was 'very evident'; the doctor knows it was negligence; you know it was negligence; your family knows it was negligence; it looks like his superiors knew it was negligence..... but it would be extremely difficult to prove in court....???!!

Does any of that add up?

Dudess · 18-04-2010 01:52AM

Yup. The doc whom my mum worked for ruptured my eardrum with one of those ear-examining yokes (I had a flu or bad sore throat or something and it was part of the overall examination) resulting in the most agonising abscess - three weeks of intense pain, chowing down mountains of painkillers/antibiotics, and getting it drained as an out-patient every couple of days.

Mr Benevolent · 18-04-2010 01:55AM

When do we get to the 'cock up' part? There should be talk of nurses in skimpy outfits, not pus-filled eardrum ruptures!

drkpower · 18-04-2010 01:57AM

Dudess wrote: »

Yup. The doc whom my mum worked for ruptured my eardrum with one of those ear-examining yokes (I had a flu or bad sore throat or something and it was part of the overall examination) resulting in the most agonising abscess - three weeks of intense pain, chowing down mountains of painkillers/antibiotics, and getting it drained as an out-patient every couple of days.

So why is that a medical cock-up rather than an unfortunate side effect of a medical procedure?

Dudess · 18-04-2010 01:58AM

Well it was a cock-up seeing as he pushed it in too far and was too rough... so to speak. :pac:

Mr Benevolent · 18-04-2010 01:58AM

drkpower wrote: »

So why is that a medical cock-up rather than an unfortunate side effect of a medical procedure?

And the difference is...

...just beyond your grasp.

astronige · 18-04-2010 01:59AM

Yes, and I/they chose to report it

i myself had bad treament from dentist.. and know of 2 cases of badpractise from doctors ...misdiagnosis both were of serious illnesses

drkpower · 18-04-2010 02:06AM

Dudess wrote: »

Well it was a cock-up seeing as he pushed it in too far and was too rough... so to speak. :pac:

I had a dental extraction that was really painful and it felt like the dentist was being very rough - it felt really sore for days afterwards.

Was that a 'dental cock-up' or an unfortunate & recognised adverse effect of a dental procedure?

Dudess · 18-04-2010 02:11AM

Hmmm... seems like you're just arguing for the sake of it. He inserted the instrument so aggressively that it caused quite a severe injury, the result of which was not absolutely devastating, but at the same time, it was no minor 48-hour bug either. Insertion of the instrument that way was obviously unprofessional of him.

drkpower wrote: »

I had a dental extraction that was really painful and it felt like the dentist was being very rough - it felt really sore for days afterwards.

"Felt like" - unpleasant I'm sure, but you're not comparing like with like.

drkpower · 18-04-2010 02:17AM

Dudess wrote: »

Hmmm... seems like you're just arguing for the sake of it. He inserted the instrument so aggressively that it caused quite a severe injury, the result of which was not absolutely devastating, but at the same time, it was no minor 48-hour bug either. Insertion of the instrument that way was obviously unprofessional of him.

"Felt like" - unpleasant I'm sure, but you're not comparing like with like.

And the dentist pulled my tooth out so aggressively that it caused me severe pain. Extraction of my tooth that way was obviously unprofessional of him.

I dont necessarily doubt your version of events - but the point is that medical procedures have adverse outcomes. Some examinations are not easy because of various anatomical and technical differences. Sometimes eardrums are perforated in the absence of any 'cock-up' merely because of the technical difficulty of the examination.

Duggy747 · 18-04-2010 02:22AM

When I tore my hand apart I went to Roscommon hospital where a guy stitched it up. (He even said halfway through it "You know, normally we get a hand surgeon to do this!" :eek:)

A week later I go to Galway and they tell me the hand wasn't stitched properly and then I had to have an operation that night to fix nerve endings that weren't spotted in Roscommon.

To be honest, the 14 hour wait was worse than the actual operation.

token56 · 18-04-2010 10:50AM

drkpower wrote: »

So, it was 'very evident'; the doctor knows it was negligence; you know it was negligence; your family knows it was negligence; it looks like his superiors knew it was negligence..... but it would be extremely difficult to prove in court....???!!

Does any of that add up?

Its a bit difficult to explain without going into significant detail. But while it was very evident it was negligence and quite simply carelessness, it would be something that could also quite simply be passed off as "human error".

If his superiors seem to know it was also negligence why would they not back us up. Well one of my family memebers also worked in this particular hospital for a good amount of time and knows the politics behind the scenes is not as simple as this. They have seen cases before of doctors being negligent but superiors still backing them up when it came down it, this has also happened before with this particularly doctor. I'm not trying to say there were mass covers up in a conspiracy theory types of way, but when push comes to shove the doctors will be sided with, which I can see the logic behind for a hospital.

Maybe we could have taken it too court, and maybe something would have been done, but at the end of the day people felt it wouldn't be worth the hardship and taking the risks of going through such a procoess. It could also lead to a very awkward situation for one my family members who still works there part time.

ricman · 18-04-2010 11:06AM

ON the george hook show,i heard a segment about anti depressant drugs.They are being prescribed to people on a daily basis by doctors.
But many of these drugs are addictive and people are not being told.IS not not wrong to give some1 a drug and not tell them its addictive if you use it 4 more than a few days.

sam34 · 18-04-2010 11:10AM

ricman wrote: »

ON the george hook show,i heard a segment about anti depressant drugs.They are being prescribed to people on a daily basis by doctors.
But many of these drugs are addictive and people are not being told.IS not not wrong to give some1 a drug and not tell them its addictive if you use it 4 more than a few days.

this ^^ is one of the biggest myths about anti-depressants

they are not addictive

granted, when stopping some of them you need to reduce the dose gradually to avoid discontinuation effects, but that does not mean they are addictive

addictive drugs are ones like alcohol and heroin - where you need to keep increasing the dose to get the same effect, where you get cravings for the substance, cannot control your intake etc etc

the show may have been talking about benzodiazepines, like valium and ativan, which are addictive. anyone who is prescribed them should be told about their addictive potential.

ilovelamp2000 · 18-04-2010 11:35AM

drkpower wrote: »

So, it was 'very evident'; the doctor knows it was negligence; you know it was negligence; your family knows it was negligence; it looks like his superiors knew it was negligence..... but it would be extremely difficult to prove in court....???!!

Does any of that add up?

If you've ever tried to run a medical negligence case you'd know that it does add up.

They are incredibly difficult to nail down.

Bazzy · 18-04-2010 11:45AM

56 posts and no link to a scrubs video this place has gone to the dogs DOGS I TELL YA

drkpower · 18-04-2010 12:00PM

token56 wrote: »

But while it was very evident it was negligence and quite simply carelessness, it would be something that could also quite simply be passed off as "human error".

'Human error' may be negligence also. If something is negligent, one cannot simply pass it off as 'human error'.

Listen, I appreciate that you may not have wanted to go down the route of taking proceedings - thats very understandable. But it is very straughtforward to get a preliminary opinion from a (non-Irish) expert to see where you stand. It seems clear you didnt get that. Even if you didnt decide to sue the doc/hospital, I would have thought that that would have given you some peace of mind, one way or the other.

The worst that could happen is you lose a few grand, (and if you are to believed) the best that copuld happen is you have a clear case of negligence and you are in with a good chance to get an early settlment and all of your costs paid.

But instead, you claim it was a clear case of negligence and do absolutely nothing to pursue that.

Busi_Girl08 · 18-04-2010 12:01PM

When I was 6 weeks old, my paediatrician snapped my femur in 2 during a routine check-up, apparantly he was 'in a rush' :rolleyes:

Mum remembers like it was yesterday, all she hear was a loud pop, then I started screaming, and the nurse rushed her out of the room

It was a scary time for them, not knowing if I would be able to walk, or if there would be any lasting damage. Luckily, I haven't had any problems

Mum and Dad sued (on my behalf), for medical expenses and transport (Mum's taxi fair to Croom every day).
In the end, I got a nice lump sum when I turned 18.

drkpower · 18-04-2010 12:05PM

Rosco1982 wrote: »

If you've ever tried to run a medical negligence case you'd know that it does add up.

They are incredibly difficult to nail down.

:rolleyes:;)

What are 'incredibly difficult to nail down'? (very imprecise language from someone who runs a medneg case....:D)

Do you mean it is very difficult to get an expert to say that a case was negligent?

So the conclusion from this is one of two things:
1. There was no negligence;
2. It was obviously negligent but noone will admit it, not even a non-Irish expert who gives expert reports and evidence every day of negligent acts by doctors......:rolleyes:.

You might want to look at what you are doing wrong..?!

opinion guy · 18-04-2010 12:14PM

Whilst I think this is a topic which needs discussion, I don't really think the discussion has been framed in the right way here. to just speak about bad things that happen as negligence is very reductionist and misleading. There are different categories of bad things.

First of all there is the recognised side-effect i.e. everything is done correctly but a certain number of people will expereience a certain side-effect. This is just down do statistics/chance and does "just happen".

The second bad thing that can happen is "negligence". This is when the bad thing happens as a result of the medical professional not following the proper ethical and procedural guidelines in deciding to take a particular course of action. OP this is the category you are trying to talk about - be careful not to lump the other categories in with this as that is misleading.

The third category of bad thing that can happen is the result of a poorly designed system. This would be for example, when the doctor treating you has been forced by his employer to be awake and workign for 2.5days continuously (which happens - no can perform at their peak for that amount of time), or when the wait for a particular test is longer than safety allows. These types of errors are not the fault of the individual Doctor/Nurse, but responsiblity lies higher up with those making managements decisions and defining policy. There currently seems to be little awareness/accountability for this kind of error in Ireland. Sometimes the frontline staff get blamed, since when these kinds of errors occur, the frontline staff are the ones face-to-face with the patient, and the management types who are to blame are never seen by the patient.

Medical cockups: more common than officially recognised?

Comments