Wrong Site Brain Surgery — Three Times in Six Years at RI Hospital

Does Rhode Island Hospital have a problem? For the third time in six years (and the second time this year) a surgeon has operated on the wrong part of the brain, the Insurance Journal reports.

The latest act of medical malpractice occurred on an 86 year-old man who was bleeding between the brain and skull, but the surgeon operated on the wrong side. (It was not the same surgeon as the other patients.)

As a result, the state’s Health Department has required the hospital to hire an independent consultant to review its neurosurgery practices and to have a second physician double-check surgery plans.

According to Dr. Peter Angood of the Joint Commission on Accreditation, wrong site surgery is “a persistent problem in American healthcare,” despite years of efforts to combat it. “No patient wants to have the wrong procedure, and we need to do whatever we can to prevent that.”

Rhode Island Hospital, by the way, is the larges in the state and affiliated with prestigious Brown University. One would think a place like that would have some pretty well-oiled procedures to make sure such mistakes do not occur.

So why, then, does it continue to occur?

See also: Wrong-site surgery case leads to probe (Boston Globe)

Share

Related posts:

  1. Wrong Site Surgery Continues To Be a Problem
  2. North Shore Hospital Sued After Brain Surgery Patient Left on Table
  3. Woman Survives 23 Years Despite Scalpel Forgotten At Surgery
  4. Suit: Hospital Loses Part of Man’s Skull (Updated)
  5. Breast Surgery As Door Prizes To Teens At Disco Clubs

Tags:

August 7, 2007 · Comments Off ·

Comments are closed.

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.