1 / 24

Spotlight Case February 2004

Spotlight Case February 2004. Delay in Antibiotics— A Fatal Mistake. Source and Credits. This presentation is based on the Feb. 2004 AHRQ WebM&M Spotlight Case in Medicine See the full article at http://webmm.ahrq.gov CME credit is available through the Web site

kaia
Download Presentation

Spotlight Case February 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Spotlight Case February 2004 Delay in Antibiotics— A Fatal Mistake

  2. Source and Credits • This presentation is based on the Feb. 2004 AHRQ WebM&M Spotlight Case in Medicine • See the full article at http://webmm.ahrq.gov • CME credit is available through the Web site • Commentary by: Lisa Bellini, MD, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine • Editor, AHRQ WebM&M: Robert Wachter, MD • Spotlight Editor: Tracy Minichiello, MD • Managing Editor: Erin Hartman, MS

  3. Learning Objectives At the conclusion of this educational activity, participants should be able to: • Understand the importance of ongoing patient re-evaluation to confirm initial clinical impression • Define the role of the attending with respect to “remote supervision” • Outline the program director’s role in processing medical errors • List different forums for processing medical errors

  4. Case: Delay in Antibiotics A 21-year-old woman with SLE, on long-term prednisone, presented to the ED with a few hours of fever, chills, myalgias, and vomiting. She was hypotensive, but responded to IV fluid resuscitation. A blood test revealed an elevated white count. Medical housestaff evaluated her, contacted the admitting attending by phone, and admitted her to a medical ward with a presumed diagnosis of viral syndrome vs. food poisoning.

  5. Case: Delay in Antibiotics (cont.) On the floor, the patient continued to require fluid resuscitation for blood pressure support. No antibiotics were given. In the morning, 10 hours after admission, her condition began to deteriorate. Her hypotension no longer responded to fluid boluses, and a subtle petechial rash was noted.

  6. Examples of Petechial Rash Petechiae Purpura

  7. Case: Delay in Antibiotics (cont.) At that time, the patient was examined by the attending physician. The attending suspected meningococcemia, started antibiotic therapy, and transferred the patient to the ICU. Despite initiation of antibiotics and full supportive treatment, the patient had a cardiac arrest and died.

  8. What Went Wrong? • Issues related to resident education • Issues related to resident supervision

  9. Issues Related to Resident Education • Fund of knowledge deficit • Chronic prednisone use results in immunocompromised state • Error in clinical judgment • Differential diagnosis of hypotension should have included sepsis and adrenal insufficiency • Failure to re-consider diagnosis when hypotension persisted despite fluid challenges

  10. Medical Errors Among Residents • 254 residents surveyed regarding medical errors • 45% reported a mistake (114/254) • 22% declined to answer questions • 33% did not respond Wu AW, et al. JAMA. 1991;265:2089-94.

  11. Types of Medical Errors Reported Among Residents Wu AW, et al. JAMA. 1991;265:2089-94.

  12. Issues Related to Resident Supervision • “Remote supervision”: attending physician not physically present to evaluate the patient • Contact via phone • Dependent on housestaff clinical skills to be surrogate • “Only as good as the information you receive”

  13. Rethinking “Remote Supervision” • Driving forces • Cost containment • Demands for improved quality of care • Work hours regulations

  14. Rethinking “Remote Supervision” • Hospitalists: individuals who practice at least 25% time in the inpatient setting • Inpatient ward is the practice venue • Available more often throughout the day and even the night • Supervision of housestaff no longer remote Wachter RM. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:338-42.

  15. Impact of Hospitalists Auerbach AD, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137;859-65.

  16. Impact of Hospitalists on Mortality Auerbach AD, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137;859-65.

  17. Impact of Hospitalists • Impact of hospitalists on errors not known • One recent study revealed no impact on presence of in-house attending trauma surgeons on mortality or length of stay • The Leapfrog Group requires on-site intensivists as a marker of quality care in ICU; ? whether hospitalists might improve safety more generally in hospital Arbabi S, et al. Arch Surg. 2003;138:47-51. The Leapfrog Group. October 2003.

  18. Effect of Increased Supervision on Housestaff Autonomy • Survey of residents comparing experience on traditional service vs. hospitalist service • No significant differences were found in residents’ satisfaction with: • Relations with attending (p = 0.16) • Autonomy in management decisions (p = 0.84) • Weight given to own decisions (p = 0.8) Chung P, et al. Am J Med. 2002;112:597-601.

  19. Percentage of Residents ‘Very Satisfied’ Chung P, et al. Am J Med. 2002;112:597-601.

  20. Duty Hours Regulations • July 2003 ACGME mandate • Resident work hours must be limited to 80 hours per week averaged over 4 weeks • No shift to exceed 24 continuous hours with an additional 6 hours for education and transfer of care • A minimum of 1 day off in 7 Resident duty hours: ACGME Web site.

  21. Impact of Duty Hours Regulations on Attending Involvement • Increased number of “handoffs” • Increased dependency on attending to provide continuity of care • Increase in implementation of non-teaching services covered by hospitalists Morelock JA, Stern DT. Am J Med. 2003;115163-9.

  22. Role of Program Director in Processing Errors • Individual Level • Address issue with resident: is it a pattern? • Determine cause: fund of knowledge, clinical skills, depression, substance abuse, etc. • Program Level • Examine curriculum: create educational initiative to prevent future errors if appropriate (i.e., M&M) • Health Care System Level • Serve as liaison between the program and the hospital administration

  23. Strategies to Address Medical Errors • Ensure adequate supervision for housestaff • Monthly patient safety discussions at residents’ report • Moderated by VP for quality and patient safety • Implementation of anonymous web-based medical errors reporting system • All personnel encouraged to report errors • Information collated centrally • Systems changes implemented

  24. Take-Home Points • Residents should have multiple venues available to discuss, report, and process medical errors • Increased supervision and less reliance on “remote supervision” may result in improved patient care • The Program Director should play a key role in identifying and processing medical errors

More Related