However, concerns are beginning to mount about the danger to patients who could be at a higher risk of infections because of the hospital’s desire to save a few dollars or cut down trash. According to Michael Bennett who is the president of the Coalition for Patients Rights, it is unconscionable for a hospital to subject a patient to the risks of infections, just to save on costs.

As a New Jersey medical malpractice lawyer, I'm definitely very concerned about this potentially dangerous trend. American hospitals already struggle with a high infection rate, and we need more firm steps taken to keep these rates in check and minimize the threat of infections. While there is a need for reducing our carbon footprint and minimizing consumption in the healthcare industry, this could be done in other areas. Patient safety must not be compromised just to green hospitals.

Health inspectors have described the conditions at Dr. Dara's Toms River office, including blood stains on the floor of the room where the doctor conducted chemotherapy treatments. Inspectors found medication vials left open, and blood inside a bin used to store blood veils. They also found saline and gauze that had not been sterilized. Earlier, health officials had advised approximately 3,000 of Dara's patents to be tested for hepatitis B, after five cancer patients who were undergoing treatment under him, contracted the diseases. Two of his patients were confirmed to have hepatitis B in February, and three others tested positive later.  None of the five patients had any other risk factors for hepatitis B.

Hepatitis B is a viral infection that can lead to chronic liver disease, cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer. It's up to 100 times more infectious than the HIV virus.  Infected blood is one of the most common modes of transmission.

Medical Malpractice Lawyers

You shouldn't have to worry about contracting a deadly disease when you walk into your doctor's office for treatment. Unfortunately, the threat of being held accountable for errors and negligence by medical malpractice lawyers is often the only thing that coaxes health care professionals to carry out their responsibilities with care.

According to this news report that relies on a study on the effects of using checklists to go though pre and post surgery routines, post surgery death rates in hospitals can be dramatically reduced if surgeons and other staff in the surgical theater actually use a simple checklist as a guideline of sorts. The checklist, that's been designed by the World Health Organization includes 19 points, including such sweet and simple gems like

• Mark the area or body part to be operated with a pen.
• Make sure that you have the right patient on the table. Ask his name.
• After the surgery, make sure that you haven’t left needles, sponges or other calling cards behind in the patient's body.

Hardly rocket scientist stuff, but according to the study that was conducted across a total of eight international cities, the effects of using a checklist like this reduces post surgery hospital deaths by close to 50 per cent. Post surgery complications dropped by nearly one third.

People use checklists to ensure that a job goes smoothly all the time - from a mother who makes a list of all things to pack before a long family trip, to the pilot who ticks off from a list before he prepares for take off, people make use of checklists to make sure that everything goes as smoothly as planned. So it makes sense that patients would be safer when doctors operate with a checklist.

This study only corroborates what those of us who work in the medical malpractice field have known all along – that many post surgery complications, medical injuries and deaths in fact can be reduced.    

When the Patient Safety Act was passed 4 years ago, it required New Jersey's hospitals to report medical and surgical errors that occurred at the facility to the Department of Health and Senior Services. It was believed that Information about medical mistakes would foster a culture of accountability and openness.  Since the Act was passed, more numbers of errors are beginning to be reported, helping the DHSS to add to its database of errors that are likely to happen in a New Jersey hospital, and the best ways to help prevent these in future. At the time the Act was passed, legislators believed that hospitals would be more open about mistakes and disclosing information about these, if their names were not revealed. The bill was passed against the protests of patient safety groups who believed that such secrecy protected hospitals unfairly.

"The bill also prevents hospitals that made the mistakes -- as well as physicians who have acknowledged playing a significant role in the error -- from seeking any payment for medical care associated with the error. "  I often receive inquiries from people who believe that they were victim's of medical malpractice and they cannot believe that they are still responsible for the physician's bills.   This part of the legislation may bring about fundamental fairness in these situations.   

The bill (S2471), approved unanimously by the Senate Health Senior Citizens and Human Services Committee in Trenton yesterday, provides broader disclosure under a compromise that hospital groups, the AARP, unions and state officials supported in principle.

It would require the health department to reveal the hospitals responsible for committing what the federal government deems the 14 most egregious mistakes. Those include operating on the wrong body part, leaving a sponge or other device inside a patient's body and allowing or creating a blood infection following surgery.

Since the Patient Safety Act was passed, critics have argued that the Act does not work to protect patients because it does not allow for the release of information about the specific hospitals where major surgical and medical errors were made. Knowing how many medical errors and what kind of errors have occurred in the state hospitals doesn't help patients make a decision while selecting a hospital for treatment. With this new legislation now giving patients access to the names of the hospitals where major mistakes have occurred, they are in a better position to make a decision based on comprehensive and accurate information. A law is not really a law if it doesn’t go as far it should to protect the rights of the people it's meant to protect. The reluctance of hospitals to have their identity revealed cannot be enough reason to keep this vital information from the public. As a Monmouth County medical malpractice lawyer who sees the results of preventable hospital errors on patients, I believe that this new legislation is just what the doctor ordered.

The company hasn't confirmed how many patients may have been affected by the inaccurate test results nor has it admitted the number of laboratories that were involved in these messed up results. According to industry watchers however, the number is possibly in the thousands. The company has faced problems with Vitamin D analysis testing of the blood before, and had changed its test design from an earlier FDA approved one to a new design. However, the new test design has problems of its own, especially when used to test large volumes.

The inaccuracy of the results could have led to two kinds of prescription errors, experts say - either the test results may be erroneously too low, in which case a patient who doesn't really need any additional supplements may end up developing an over dosage reaction to Vitamin D, or the results could show a higher reading that ensures that patients don’t receive the strength of dosage they require. At least one doctor in New York City has confirmed that one of his patients developed a toxic level of Vitamin D in the blood as the result of an overdose. 

Toxicity of Vitamin Dcan be seen in minor symptoms, like nausea, vomiting and constipation, but its major effects can be seen in the form of increased levels of calcium in the blood, disorientation and abnormal heart rhythm. Excess calcium can be deposited in the kidneys, increasing the risk of kidney stones.

The question doctors and Monmouth County medical malpractice lawyers are asking is why the company took so long to admit that there had been inaccuracies in its results, when these slip-ups had first been brought to its attention in 2007.

The concept of having pharmacy chain employees on state pharmacy boards supposedly ensures that these boards have the expertise of seasoned professionals to draw from. While that may be true, it also ensures that the boards are staffed with a number of members who act to protect the interests of the pharmacies they work for. It reduces the concept of an "independent" state board regulating and overseeing the functioning of thousands of pharmacies in a state, to a farce.

Nobody should be too surprised when these board members who have vested interests proceed to veto decisions that are detrimental to the interests of the chain they work for. A perfect example to illustrate the conflict of interest here is the case of Tonya Pearson, a pharmacist at a Jacksonville Walgreen outlet, whose failure to catch a prescription error led to the death of Terry Paul Smith, a construction worker. When the employee came up for disciplinary hearings, a board member who was also a pharmacist at Walgreen, vetoed a fine of $10,000 on the erring Pearson. She got away with a $1,000 fine, and an "education program" to help catch errors – something Walgreen should have put her through before it allowed her to fill prescriptions at their outlet.

Such conflict of interest has riled advocates of better separation between the regulator and the regulated. But, the status quo continues merrily, and the only sufferers are victims of prescription errors like Terry Paul Smith. It's injustices like these that inspire pharmacy misfill lawyers who often turn out to be the only line of defense against well connected, big name chain pharmacies and their widespread sphere of influence. 

The report uses the case of a 56-year-old woman, Sharon Yacketta who has had to undergo 19 surgeries in the past 4 years – one to correct her original problem of urinary incontinence, and the remaining 18 to correct the horrific errors that resulted from that first surgery.   Since that first botched operation when surgeons at University Hospital managed to rupture her right ureter, Yacketta has battled infections, and watched helplessly as her urinary incontinence ballooned into a vastly more complicated condition.  

In New Jersey, we have seen the number of preventable hospital errors increase steadily over the past three years. Like University Hospital which has faced more than a few medical malpractice lawsuits in the past , we have our own facilities in New Jersey where patients are more likely to return in worse condition than they were in when they arrived. So, the next time people whine about medical malpractice lawyers and malpractice insurance contributing to the skyrocketing healthcare costs in this country, it might be appropriate to point them towards this report.

Physicians in some counties already have the e-prescription system installed, and have been using it with success. There has been a lot of positive feedback about the system that allow doctors to maintain records of patients, and then send their prescriptions to the pharmacy to be filled and ready by the time the patient gets there. The program is part of a nationwide promotion of the system by the federal government including a Medicare bonus incentive for doctors who prescribe through the system, that's expected to kick off in 2009.

But the biggest advantage could be in the doing away with handwritten prescriptions, often in a physician's illegible handwriting, and the move to an electronic system which is uniformly legible and understandable. This takes away at least one factor that results in pharmacy errors, out of the equation - doctor's often hurried and unintelligible handwriting. But the system does not factor in the other aspects that often play a greater part in pharmacy errors, like the speed with which prescriptions are filled. Pharmacists at chain pharmacies are often under pressure to fill as many prescriptions as humanly possible, or have incentives to do so which only increases the risk for potentially dangerous medication mistakes. The system also won't take into account factors like fatigue, overwork, stress and others that can contribute to an error while filling a prescription. It also won't deal with similar sounding drug names.   Already, pharmacists complain that the system comes with some software issues that could compound the error potential. For instance, the system dispenses directions for liquid medications along with tablet or capsule prescriptions. Plus, it takes time to set up, although it's easy to use once it's actually installed.

There are an approximate 85,000 doctors around the country who have electronic prescription systems installed, and more than 70 percent of pharmacies in the country accept these. How well the system will work over the long run, especially after the bonus system adds incentive to prescribe electronically, will have to be seen.

In 2007, according to the third Patient Safety report by the state Department of Health and Senior Services, a total of 72 people died as a result of preventable hospital errors. The report takes into account all types of preventable mistakes in a hospital environment, from surgical and medical mistakes, to bed sores and falls that occur as a result of negligence. The 72 deaths were an increase by 30 from the previous year. There were a total of 456 hospital errors reported for 2007, which was also higher than in 2006. In fact, the rate of errors has grown every year since the Patient Safety Act regulations involving the reporting of hospital errors, came into force. The Patient Safety Act requires all preventable hospital errors committed by hospital staff, including nurses, doctors, surgeons, and others to be reported  to the Department of Health and Senior Services.

As far as I am concerned, 72 totally preventable deaths in a hospital setting are still 72 more than we should have. We must remember we're not talking about people dying of cancer or other illnesses, or succumbing to wounds from an accident here.  We're talking about mistakes made by surgeons, and errors in prescribing and dispensing medication to patients. We're talking about the presence of bed sores that only result when a bedridden patient hasn't been turned in several hours. These are all entirely preventable mistakes, and until we start seeing a reverse trend in statistics every time the Patient Safety report comes out, there's no reason for a pat on the back and a self satisfied smirk. As I pointed out in this post on the concealing of hospital error information in New Jersey, the need for New Jersey medical malpractice lawyers is increased when we  continue to have cases like the 456 reported preventable errors that were committed in our hospitals last year.  

As this report reveals, because of this protective system, citizens have no way of telling how many errors a particular pharmacy or pharmacist has scored on their tally. The State Board of Pharmacy only releases records to the public in case there is any disciplinary action taken against the pharmacist in question, for his error. The Board admits it takes this step to protect the pharmacies and pharmacists. The pharmacies may be safe and protected. But who, we wonder, is responsible for protecting citizens? When records are available for public review only in the event of a disciplinary action, then it becomes hard for people to know exactly how many pharmacies have been diligent in following regulations and maintaining safe dispensing practices, and how many have been casually sweeping pharmacy errors under the Board's carpet. 

The extent of protection and privacy that's being afforded to New Hampshire pharmacies and their pharmacists is of concern to citizens' groups who worry about the lack of transparency in the oversight system. If all you can expect in case of an error is that the Board will decide whether to merely let off the pharmacist with an unrecorded warning, or take it to the next level, then it becomes hard to make any assumptions about the safety of your regular pharmacy. As Board members themselves point out, very few of the violations cases actually come up before the Board for action. Last year, inspectors brought exactly five pharmacy error complaints to the Board's notice. The year before that, the number was one.

To have pharmacists receive this level of protection from oversight and corrective measures is shocking to pharmacy error lawyers like me, who have been pushing for greater transparency and accountability in the country's' pharmacy chains. Citizens have the right to know how many pharmacists at exactly which pharmacy have been cited for errors. Ultimately, it's public health and safety we're talking about here, and there needs to be accountability.   

Ms. Brandy Fanning, 31, of Syracuse, New York, said that as a result of the injuries she sustained by the dentist's actions, she had to undergo emergency surgery. According to court papers, Ms. Fanning is seeking $600,000 for her medical expenses, pain and suffering in the lawsuit she filed against Dr. Trusty in U.S. District Court in Syracuse last month.

The couple alleges in their complaint that she began to feel ill and began vomiting about a month into her pregnancy and assumed it was morning sickness, all the while taking what she thought were the prenatal vitamins.  About a month later, she miscarried her baby. It is alleged that her unborn child was killed due to the ingesting of the potent chemotherapy drug.  After her miscarriage, she continued to take the chemotherapy drugs (still thinking they were prenatal vitamins) because she believed that the vitamins would prepare her for a subsequent pregnancy. It wasn't until she telephoned Walgreens for a refill that the pharmacist realized the mistake.  Please read the full article.  I implore you to write in about your own personal stories pertaining to pharmacy mistakes and errors and your opinions about what has happened to this couple.

Auto insurers are clearly in the driver's seat when it comes to paying claims, using the "delay, deny, defend" strategy to wear down their insureds has proven profitable for the insurers, and has done nothing for consumers. Here's the irony, if the insurance companies are reducing the amount of money they have to pay out in claims, and have targeted soft tissue injury claims to improve their bottom lines, (using what can only be described as harassment tactics--painting the insured as a defrauder, denying claims, making lawsuits expensive, failing to return repeat communications), you would think that this would at least lead to a savings that the consumer would appreciably feel in lowered premiums. Not so. The time has come to fight back.