Nurse's Suicide Highlights Twin Tragedies of Medical Errors
 

The suicide of a Seattle nurse who accidentally overdosed a baby with 10 times too much medication has spurred new debate about how to treat medical providers who make serious, even fatal, errors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43529641...s/from/toolbar

***
Sad for the baby and sad for Nurse Hiatt. :(

Wow, how sad. I was shocked that they fired her. Medical mistakes happen, but firing a professional because of a mistake without a history of prior mistakes that haven't been corrected is ridiculous. What a senseless loss. Medical professionals are human, and we make mistakes. The important thing is to learn from those mistakes and take steps to make sure they don't happen again.

Is there immense pressure to fire someone considering the threat of lawsuit? Do you think she may not have been fired had this not resulted in the death of a child?

If it had been a 75 year old who died, with the same thing happening (too much medication), no one would have given a shit.

The concept of a baby's/child's life as more important (for lack of a better word) than an adult's makes me ill and it's incredibly prevalent in this society. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Infant/child mortality has gone down so much that we think if it ever happens, someone DID something wrong. From the story, it sounds as though this baby would never have made it to age 5, if that.

Yes it's sad when a child dies without having lived a full life, but we don't know everything, and sometimes, that IS their full life. You go when you're supposed to go. It's no sadder than, as I said, a 75 year old passing away.

They can't medically prove that it caused the (already critically ill) child's death, otherwise I would not be surprised to see her fired for just this reason, DrPhil. But considering the child's declining health, the family's understanding, and the hospital's "Just Culture" model (correct systematic problems, not individuals) I'm surprised, and saddened, that they fired her, too. She sounded like a wonderful caregiver. The article highlights a few possible mental weaknesses that she had (such as "running out of coping skills") but I don't know if anyone can put themselves in her shoes AND say they wouldn't have been as upset. I can't imagine how traumatic this was for her. What a tragedy.

This is the first time I've heard/read about Dr. Wu's "second victim" idea. Puts perfectly into words what happens all too often.

I think the only immense pressure comes from inside to make administration feel better. Unfortunately, it doesn't improve liability, and it causes more problems with staff feeling like they can't report errors without the risk of firing. It's a knee jerk reaction. As to 33girl's comments about the death of a child versus an adult, I couldn't agree with her more. This attitude is perpetuated by the pediatric caregivers, as well. No person's life is more valuable than another's...no matter the age.

Terrible situation but who's to really know that she wouldn't have committed suicide had she not been fired? I couldn't imagine having to live with such a thing.

Firing the individual generally does little to relieve the consequences of a lawsuit, at least from a practical standpoint - plaintiff's counsel will simply rail against the firing as 'proof' that the hospital knew the mistakes were egregious and so on.

Most would use the suicide as further evidence of same, although you might need kid gloves there.

Either way, I doubt their liability carrier would have the sway to 'force' a firing, especially if it isn't written into the hospital's regulations. Purely administrative.

Would the plaintiffs attorney's be allowed to use an accused suicide as "proof of guilt" or would the Judge quash that right off the bat? I don't know whether I am reading you correctly.

If I was the judge, I'd exclude it because the fact of the suicide is too prejudicial and not really probative at all. As far a "proof of guilt," she gave the baby 10x the dosage. I don't think there's a question of liability. The only question in my mind is how much the insurance company has to pay to make these parents whole.

That's what I thought. The attorney's for the plaintive would give it a try but it wouldn't go very far.

Yeah, Kevin explained why "proof of guilt" isn't all that important - it's evidence of degree though, which influences damages decisions. The plaintiff attorney needs to drive anger to earn big figures - degree -> anger.

Also, by "kid gloves" I didn't mean "be nice about it" - I meant it would be hard to get in, so you'd have to work around it. I would agree with Kevin that it shouldn't be allowed, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't (each judge's view of what constitutes a 'clean record' obviously varies).

And maybe the jury should be angry? Perhaps the hospital doesn't have safety measures which are common elsewhere implemented because it saves them money or time or because they just haven't considered it. We know none of that, and that is why the good Lord created discovery. There may be something for a jury to get mad about, and don't knock those big figures, if insurance companies didn't have to pay out big bucks, we'd have a culture where profitability outweighs life. I prefer to keep those number crunchers guessing as to how much it costs to kill and maim people.

I suppose it could arguably come in, but the only reason we're hearing about it is because it's extremely abnormal for something like this to happen, and maybe the insurance company types want us to see how ravaged these poor medical professionals are because of these mean, nasty lawsuits... and this isn't really the time or place for that. From where I sit, this is an open and shut case as to liability. Punitive damages are fair game though.