Medical Malpractice Watch

This discussion is closed.
JOEBIALEK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#1
On May 7, 2001, my mother, Eileen Bialek {age 72} underwent elective surgery for correction of a prolapsed uterus and cystocle. The surgeon in the department of Urology at a major medical facility in Cleveland agreed to perform an open laparotomy with a uterine suspension. Eileen’s past medical history included colon resection for bowel cancer 18 years prior. The surgeon was aware that she had previous abdominal surgery but decided that open laparotomy was the procedure of choice and did not discourage Eileen from this type of surgery despite the risk of complications. He did not offer her a second opinion. No prior medical conditions pertinent to this surgery were present. With the exception of symptoms of urgency and a visually prolapsed uterus, Eileen had no other medical problems. She was active in her church and community as well as taking care of her spouse.
Postoperative course initially was normal until discharge when she started to vomit bile and was readmitted 18 hours post discharge. The surgeon evaluated Eileen and suspected she developed a postoperative ileus. His initial treatment consisted of telling her daughter to " give her a milkshake" to encourage her bowel to move. She did indeed follow the surgeon's advice; however, Eileen’s condition continued to deteriorate. Conservative treatment over the following two weeks consisted of clear liquids and nothing by mouth. Total parenteral nutrition {TPN} was then initiated and finally bowel decompression via nasogastric tube. Preliminary x-rays were done but results were not followed up on.

At two weeks postop a computed tomography {CT} scan was done which revealed a blockage in the small bowel. The surgeon advised Eileen of the need to return to surgery because he suspected that an adhesion was causing the blockage and it needed to be released. Eileen consented to the surgery and requested that her previous surgeon {bowel cancer} be in attendance. The current surgeon said he was out of town and he was asking another colorectal surgeon to be on hand.

Eileen was taken to surgery May 17, 2001. After 5.5 hrs of surgery the surgeon informed her daughter that he found a portion of the small bowel had twisted and he had to resect a portion of it. Because there were enterotomies, a jejunostomy was placed along with two mucous fistuals. Blood loss required transfusion of six units of blood during surgery. Eileen was transferred to the surgical intensive care where she required full fluid resuscitation and mechanical ventilation for two weeks. She sustained atrial fibrillation, required seventeen units of blood and clotting factors secondary to developing large retroperitonal hematoma. She remained in the ICU for 4 weeks and transferred to the floor for two more weeks at which time she was admitted to a long term acute care hospital. Before discharge the resident informed her that she had a rectal laceration and would need to have that repaired when her jejunostomy would be reversed in one year. She remained at the acute care hospital for 4 weeks then transferred to a nursing home to continue her recovery. Eileen was so debilitated from the surgery she required daily physical and occupational therapy.

During this entire time she experienced daily nausea and vomiting. Physicians at two different hospitals were consulted and determined that gallstones in the common bile duct were causing her symptoms along with elevated liver function. Eileen underwent repeated endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatopography {ERCP} over the next several months as no surgeon would remove her gallbladder for risk of causing more bleeding and complications.

Eileen had two episodes of sepsis treated by antibiotics during several readmits to the original surgical facility.

Finally in December of 2002, she became acutely septic and unresponsive and was transferred to the emergency room of a nearby hospital. The hospital surgeon determined that removing her gallbladder was probably her only chance to survive. She was placed on full life support, aggressive antibiotic management, vasopressor agents and taken to surgery. The surgeon successfully removed the gallbladder and informed the family that her organs were stuck together like cement. He gave no guarantees but stated that with antibiotics and life support she may be able to survive but with an arduous recovery. The bilirubin continued to rise; she was severely jaundiced and no longer responded to increase vasopressors or dialysis. Eileen Bialek expired on January 8, 2002. The postmortem documents indicated that she died of organ failure secondary to sepsis. The origin of the infection was vancomycin resistant enterococci {VRE} in the common bile duct probably secondary to the ERCP or the residual retroperitoneal hematoma.

I believe she was deceived by her surgeon in terms of the full disclosure of the risks involved in this kind of surgery. Anyone who knew her would testify that she was not one to take un-necessary risks. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to pass "Do No Harm" legislation requiring a neutral third party to be present during all pre-surgical consultations.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#2
Report 13 years ago
#2
(Original post by JOEBIALEK)
On May 7, 2001, my mother, Eileen Bialek {age 72} underwent elective surgery for correction of a prolapsed uterus and cystocle. The surgeon in the department of Urology at a major medical facility in Cleveland agreed to perform an open laparotomy with a uterine suspension. Eileen’s past medical history included colon resection for bowel cancer 18 years prior. The surgeon was aware that she had previous abdominal surgery but decided that open laparotomy was the procedure of choice and did not discourage Eileen from this type of surgery despite the risk of complications. He did not offer her a second opinion. No prior medical conditions pertinent to this surgery were present. With the exception of symptoms of urgency and a visually prolapsed uterus, Eileen had no other medical problems. She was active in her church and community as well as taking care of her spouse.
Postoperative course initially was normal until discharge when she started to vomit bile and was readmitted 18 hours post discharge. The surgeon evaluated Eileen and suspected she developed a postoperative ileus. His initial treatment consisted of telling her daughter to " give her a milkshake" to encourage her bowel to move. She did indeed follow the surgeon's advice; however, Eileen’s condition continued to deteriorate. Conservative treatment over the following two weeks consisted of clear liquids and nothing by mouth. Total parenteral nutrition {TPN} was then initiated and finally bowel decompression via nasogastric tube. Preliminary x-rays were done but results were not followed up on.

At two weeks postop a computed tomography {CT} scan was done which revealed a blockage in the small bowel. The surgeon advised Eileen of the need to return to surgery because he suspected that an adhesion was causing the blockage and it needed to be released. Eileen consented to the surgery and requested that her previous surgeon {bowel cancer} be in attendance. The current surgeon said he was out of town and he was asking another colorectal surgeon to be on hand.

Eileen was taken to surgery May 17, 2001. After 5.5 hrs of surgery the surgeon informed her daughter that he found a portion of the small bowel had twisted and he had to resect a portion of it. Because there were enterotomies, a jejunostomy was placed along with two mucous fistuals. Blood loss required transfusion of six units of blood during surgery. Eileen was transferred to the surgical intensive care where she required full fluid resuscitation and mechanical ventilation for two weeks. She sustained atrial fibrillation, required seventeen units of blood and clotting factors secondary to developing large retroperitonal hematoma. She remained in the ICU for 4 weeks and transferred to the floor for two more weeks at which time she was admitted to a long term acute care hospital. Before discharge the resident informed her that she had a rectal laceration and would need to have that repaired when her jejunostomy would be reversed in one year. She remained at the acute care hospital for 4 weeks then transferred to a nursing home to continue her recovery. Eileen was so debilitated from the surgery she required daily physical and occupational therapy.

During this entire time she experienced daily nausea and vomiting. Physicians at two different hospitals were consulted and determined that gallstones in the common bile duct were causing her symptoms along with elevated liver function. Eileen underwent repeated endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatopography {ERCP} over the next several months as no surgeon would remove her gallbladder for risk of causing more bleeding and complications.

Eileen had two episodes of sepsis treated by antibiotics during several readmits to the original surgical facility.

Finally in December of 2002, she became acutely septic and unresponsive and was transferred to the emergency room of a nearby hospital. The hospital surgeon determined that removing her gallbladder was probably her only chance to survive. She was placed on full life support, aggressive antibiotic management, vasopressor agents and taken to surgery. The surgeon successfully removed the gallbladder and informed the family that her organs were stuck together like cement. He gave no guarantees but stated that with antibiotics and life support she may be able to survive but with an arduous recovery. The bilirubin continued to rise; she was severely jaundiced and no longer responded to increase vasopressors or dialysis. Eileen Bialek expired on January 8, 2002. The postmortem documents indicated that she died of organ failure secondary to sepsis. The origin of the infection was vancomycin resistant enterococci {VRE} in the common bile duct probably secondary to the ERCP or the residual retroperitoneal hematoma.

I believe she was deceived by her surgeon in terms of the full disclosure of the risks involved in this kind of surgery. Anyone who knew her would testify that she was not one to take un-necessary risks. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to pass "Do No Harm" legislation requiring a neutral third party to be present during all pre-surgical consultations.
Lucky for me i have just this evening written up all my notes on gall bladder disease and choleocystectomy. I therefore am quite well briefed on it. Can you say the same?

Seems to me that people like youself would cry murder if the doctors had said "this procedure will help significantly if successful, but there is a 15% chance of complications" and then not performed the surgery.

Which particular surgery do you take issue with? The original one that saved her life? how about the ones that were to try to relieve the side-effects of the original surgery?

How would having a 3rd party present during consultations help? it would mean having to explain the procedure - some of them intimate to two people, neither of whom would probably have a clue. At best the medical profession can give rough percentages of side effects and the like.

in someone with stones (which the ERCP would have been clearing, but which have a 50% chance of recurring in 5 years) in the common bile duct there is of course the risk of 2ndary bilary cirrhosis (which may well have occured here) and of cause cholangitis (bile duct infection) - the bacteria of which like you yourself have pointed out would have been enteric - they would have come from the bowel into which the bile duct feeds.
ERCP raises the risk of infection slightly, but is actually somewhat of a major break through for gallbladder surgery.

On a side note there are obviously multiple co-morbidities you don't have the medical know how to mention. There seems to have been concern over clotting - if thsi lady had atrial fibrillation she would have been anti-coagulated so liable to bleed massively if operated on.

I would suggest you don't waste your breath. Ask for the case to be looked into, if there is no evidence of medical mismanagement then accep this for what it is, a vain attempt by a bunch of doctors to help a lady survive, and increase her quality of life in the face of multiple pathologies.
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 13 years ago
#3
I'm not even sure that he's real. Who talks about their mother like this?
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 13 years ago
#4
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...n+Bialek&meta= hmmmm
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#5
Report 13 years ago
#5
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...n+Bialek&meta= hmmmm
GOOD GOD!
That guy must have posted on every forum there is.
perhaps a new cheap method of attempting to rally support for stupid laws?
JOEBIALEK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#6
Thanks for your kind words. A medical ombudsman could serve as a checks and balance between doctor and patient. Today, many companies record conversations between company and customer. Had the surgeon advised my mother that one of the potential complications could be a jejunostomy, she would not have had it done.
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 13 years ago
#7
(Original post by JOEBIALEK)
Thanks for your kind words. A medical ombudsman could serve as a checks and balance between doctor and patient. Today, many companies record conversations between company and customer. Had the surgeon advised my mother that one of the potential complications could be a jejunostomy, she would not have had it done.
Your mother shoy-uld have taken some responsibility for not looking up herself as to risks involved in her surgery.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 13 years ago
#8
(Original post by JOEBIALEK)
Thanks for your kind words. A medical ombudsman could serve as a checks and balance between doctor and patient. Today, many companies record conversations between company and customer. Had the surgeon advised my mother that one of the potential complications could be a jejunostomy, she would not have had it done.
How do you know your mother would hav refused the surgery if she had known that was a potential complication? Did she explicitly say to anyone at any point she was concerned about that? If yes, how did she not know it was a possible consequence?

Don't take this as an insensitive personal attack, just wondering how you know this to be the case, as it seems central to your argument.
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 13 years ago
#9
(Original post by foolfarian)
perhaps a new cheap method of attempting to rally support for stupid laws?
I wonder if he uses software to help him so that he saves time. Why would he post on a British based site beats me. A lot of us couldn't care less what people protest to US Congress.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#10
Report 13 years ago
#10
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
How do you know your mother would hav refused the surgery if she had known that was a potential complication? Did she explicitly say to anyone at any point she was concerned about that? If yes, how did she not know it was a possible consequence?

Don't take this as an insensitive personal attack, just wondering how you know this to be the case, as it seems central to your argument.
He won't reply
i think he has sent the same '2nd message' to every website

his argument is utter bull
imagine having a 3rd person in every consultation!
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 13 years ago
#11
(Original post by foolfarian)
He won't reply
i think he has sent the same '2nd message' to every website

his argument is utter bull
imagine having a 3rd person in every consultation!
Looks like you're right. Also looks like we're more cynical than most of the other forums.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#12
Report 13 years ago
#12
(Original post by frost105)
Your mother shoy-uld have taken some responsibility for not looking up herself as to risks involved in her surgery.
This lady was 72!

Most people of that generation (and most people of all generations in this country) tend to accept the word of their doctor as 'gospel'.

I know they shouldn't but I do feel that sometimes doctors encourage that sort of blind faith as it panders to their ego (not all doctors, foolfarian, I'm sure you will be different when you are unleashed on the unwitting public after you qualify!)

I have heard of doctors getting very uppity if their patient questions their judgement. I think it's very harsh, and somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the particular lady should have taken some responsiblity for checking out the risks herself. That is what the doctor is for, no?
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 13 years ago
#13
(Original post by yawn)

Most people of that generation (and most people of all generations in this country) tend to accept the word of their doctor as 'gospel'.
I don't believe a word they say. Bunch of quacks IMO.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#14
Report 13 years ago
#14
(Original post by Howard)
I don't believe a word they say. Bunch of quacks IMO.
But if you were constipated for a month, went ot the doctors and they said 'we think it might be cancer', shall we stick an endoscope up your ass to see I'm sure you would quickly agree with them...
Jamie
Badges: 18
#15
Report 13 years ago
#15
(Original post by yawn)
This lady was 72!

Most people of that generation (and most people of all generations in this country) tend to accept the word of their doctor as 'gospel'.

I know they shouldn't but I do feel that sometimes doctors encourage that sort of blind faith as it panders to their ego (not all doctors, foolfarian, I'm sure you will be different when you are unleashed on the unwitting public after you qualify!)

I have heard of doctors getting very uppity if their patient questions their judgement. I think it's very harsh, and somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the particular lady should have taken some responsiblity for checking out the risks herself. That is what the doctor is for, no?
True some docs have big egos, and alllllways know what is right (actually alot of the ones i know - even consultants do the whole 'uhoh, have a missed something' thing when they talk about the patient to another of their doctors) however, this woman basically had everything and all gone wrong, the docs would have said 'look you are shagged if you stay as you are, do you want us to try and fix this despite the fact other things will prob go wrong'
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 13 years ago
#16
(Original post by foolfarian)
But if you were constipated for a month, went ot the doctors and they said 'we think it might be cancer', shall we stick an endoscope up your ass to see I'm sure you would quickly agree with them...
Only because the suppositories were getting boring.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 13 years ago
#17
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Only because the suppositories were getting boring.
Or a dildo in your case.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (108)
19.78%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (222)
40.66%
Nope, not that interesting (216)
39.56%

Watched Threads

View All