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.