This topic is a little bit off course from what we generally talk about on VascularDeviceForum.com-ie upbeat optimism of new technology, creative energies and competition of the vascular device space. However, I know that once in a while, it's important to pull our heads out of the clouds and return to discuss the realities of day-to-day medical practice. Certainly one of those realities is the potential for medical malpractice lawsuit at any time.
Although, medical malpractice was on the front lines of healthcare issues and at critical proportions in many states, it seems that some efforts have been moderately successfull at stopping the hemorrhage (pardon the symbolism, but it is vasculardeviceforum.com after all). The max exodus of physicians from certain hot beds like PA has equilibrated to some degree.
Today, I received a comment from an anonymous individual describing himself as an attorney specializing in medical malpractice. He seemed to suggest that the new wave of malpractice will focus on medical devices, suggesting that medical device misuse and malfunction offer the potential to tag the physician, hospital and deep pocketed medical device manufacturer. Additional, a single event of malfunction uncovered usually suggests that other events have occurred but just have not been recognized or announced
Additionally, he suggested that the free standing facilities like vascular access maintenance centers are being closely observed for several reasons. These are dialysis access maintenance facilities usually managed by a company like Davita, Fresenius, Lifeline or American Access. Sometimes they are set up as an extension of practice or an Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC). Because the model is developing, oversite by various agencies is sometimes lacking and quality controls that are in place in hospital settings are sometimes lacking, Reporting of adverse events, best medical practices and actions to rectify issues may not be as stringent
Lastly, combined with the for-profit model, absence of economies of scale and close attention to expenses-medical practice may be altered in these circumstances.
While his comments seem quite plausible, I always like to believe that all healthcare practioners focus on patient interest. I then remembered a question that I received from a conference participant at a dialysis access maintenance talk. The question was from an access company administrator. He wanted to know why he had one facility that used two different balloon sizes on a particular dialysis access maintenance procedure while another facility routinely used one for the same procedure. The answer was quickly apparrent that once facility was using and inappropriately large balloon to "cut costs".
In all likelihood, if carefully done, it would have no consequences-but clearly it was not "standard medical practice". But it may be what happens when every piece of equipment used impacts the users bottom line
I would like to hear comments and questions about this provocative idea.
Comments