3-2 Final Project Milestone One Malpractice Case
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
IHP-420-X3
Subject
Medicine
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by phillipmorrison12
Student: Phillip Morrison
Date: 9/17/23
Professor: Mary Vongarlem
Institution: Southern New Hampshire University
The dispute that originated from the activities of Dr. Ricketson, who mistakenly inserted
Ethical and Legal consideration
shards of a screwdriver into Mr. Iturralde's spinal column instead of the intended titanium rods.
In addition, the physician abstained from divulging this information to the patient or their family.
In spite of the availability of Medtronic's offer to personally deliver the rods, the doctor
consciously opted to decline this possibility and instead utilized a device that he had manually
fabricated.
This event caused a decline in Arturo's health, which in turn led to the fragmentation of
the screwdriver fragments that were embedded in his back, necessitating multiple surgical
procedures. In the end, he succumbed to difficulties directly related to his medical condition. The
subject of the investigation is a legal matter. It is of the utmost significance to determine whether
the hospital and surgeon were negligent and contributed to the untimely death of the individual.
Mr. Arturo Iturralde went to HMC to see a doctor because he had stiffness in both of his
lower limbs, which caused him to fall over and over again. After a thorough evaluation, Mr.
Iturralde was sent to see Dr. Ricketson, who is an expert in orthopedics. At Mr. Iturralde's visit
on January 24, 2001, Dr. Ricketson told him he had degenerative spondylolisthesis L4-5 with
stenosis. The patient should have spine fusion surgery on January 29, 2001, the doctor said.
During this surgery, the doctor would put two rods into the patient's spinal column. This is called
a bilateral fixation. Dr. Ricketson placed an order for the necessary kit, which was brought on
January 27, 2001. This made it easier for the surgery to be done. When the kit got to the surgery
room, the staff didn't check it to see if anything was missing or broken.
Following the sterilization procedure, subsequently, Dr. Ricketson received notification
from a nurse indicating that the kit had not undergone prior inspection. Following a surgical
1
Ethical and Legal consideration
procedure lasting two hours, the medical practitioner came to the realization that the requisite
rods for the surgery were absent from the container. A thorough investigation was conducted and
the individuals contacted Medtronic, the corporate entity responsible for assembling the kit, in
order to ascertain whether the rods had been inserted into the package they had received. The
determination of the rods was inconclusive, prompting Medtronic to propose sending them, with
an estimated arrival time of approximately 90 minutes.
Consequently, an alternative approach was adopted, involving the utilization of a
stainless steel screwdriver. As a result of the utilization of a screwdriver, it became necessary for
the patient to undergo an additional surgical procedure on February 5, 2001. The patient and their
family were not informed by the doctor on the improvisation that occurred during the initial
surgical procedure. Arturo saw a gradual deterioration in his health, ultimately resulting in
complete dependence and the inability to independently engage in any tasks of daily living. The
individual in question had a state of being confined to bed and ultimately succumbed on June 18,
2013, as documented by Leonard (2019).
Medical Malpractice Component:
1.
key legal components
The most significant legal aspects of this case pertain to the obligation of medical
practitioners to exercise a duty of care towards their patients and the level of treatment that is
expected within the field of health care. In the present litigation, the plaintiff contended that the
defendants violated the established standard of diligence by neglecting to adequately supervise
him throughout the surgical procedure, causing him to endure significant complications and
enduring injuries of a lasting nature. The jury concurred with the plaintiff's position and granted
him monetary compensation.
2
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Ethical and Legal consideration
2.
Malpractice policies
The conventional protocol for handling such matters typically include healthcare personnel
adhering to the standard of care and informing patients about any potential hazards associated
with a certain procedure, as mandated by malpractice policies. The jury's verdict in the Iturralde
v. Hilo Medical Center USA case determined that the defendants did not meet the expected level
of care in their treatment of the plaintiff and neglected to adequately disclose the potential
dangers involved with the procedure.
3.
Standard of care
The standard of care was not adhered to in the case study due to several factors. Had the
surgery been conducted by an alternative surgeon, it is quite probable that the chosen course of
action would have deviated from that undertaken by Dr. Ricketson. Despite being informed that
the kit had not been tested, the individual in question proceeded with the procedure, thus
contravening the established norms of medical care. According to legal regulations, hospitals and
medical practitioners are obligated to adhere to established protocols, which in this particular
instance involves conducting an inspection of medical kits to verify the presence of all necessary
items.
4.
Cultural backgrounds
The patient's history, while potentially inconsequential, should not undermine the
importance of treating all individuals with equal measures of respect and decency. Certain
cultural groups hold beliefs that discourage them from seeking medical assistance, and as a result
of this ongoing situation, their reluctance to consult doctors has intensified. This episode has the
potential to alter the perspectives of healthcare consumers, as it may erode their trust in the
healthcare system, leading to a subsequent hesitancy in seeking medical assistance.
3
Ethical and Legal consideration
5.
Accountability
The healthcare provider in question was deemed responsible by the jury, resulting in the
awarding of damages to the plaintiff. The jury determined that the healthcare practitioner had
violated the established standard of care and exhibited negligence in their provision of treatment
to the plaintiff. HMC incurred liability due to its decision to employ a doctor who had a history
of disciplinary actions at the time of his application. Despite being aware of this information, the
hospital proceeded with the hiring, assuming responsibility for any subsequent instances of
negligence exhibited by the doctor.
References:
Leonard, J. (2019). FindLaw's Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii case and opinions.
4
Ethical and Legal consideration
Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-
ofappeals/1597588.html
Rasoal, D., Skovdahl, K., Gifford, M., & Kihlgren, A. (2017). Clinical ethics support for
healthcare personnel: An integrative literature review. HEC Forum, 29(4), 313–346. doi:
10.1007/s10730-017-9325-
5
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help