Prescription and hospital-administered medicine errors are a significant problem in the United States. Because prescriptions and doctors' instructions get passed down to nurses, pharmacists and others, there are opportunities for errors to be made nearly anywhere along the chain of command.
When we think of hospitals, the image that comes to mind is often a place of healing. Save for those suffering from a chronic and progressive disease, no one expects to leave a hospital sicker than when they arrived. Sadly, this happens far more often than most of us realize.
There are some nightmare scenarios so scary that they have endured as the premises of horror stories and urban legends. One of these scenarios involves being buried alive. For some, there would be few scarier ways to die than by waking up in a closed casket under several feet of earth.
In an unusual and tragic claim, a mother has filed a lawsuit against the hospital where she gave birth. While it occurred in another state, it highlights a question of concern to any parent who has lost a child, whether the loss involved a birth injury or events surrounding the birth.
In the realm of birth injuries, certain conditions or occurrences seem to be reported and receive media coverage more often than other adverse outcomes. Those commonly include things like cerebral palsy, bone fractures, spinal cord injuries, fetal asphyxia and hospital-acquired infections.
A new study is debunking the widely held notion that patients can face a seasonal increased risk of hospital malpractice due to factors operative within what is known as the "July Effect." These supposed risk factors are attributed to the new wave of inexperienced medical residents that start their terms at hospitals during the summer, most commonly during July.
The term "sloppy and paste" might intuitively seem most aptly attached to a student's mediocre writing efforts or media plagiarism.
"Studies like this give us the opportunity to find out how we are actually doing," says Asad Latif, "compared to how we think we are doing."
As one doctor -- an infectious-disease specialist in New York City -- queried recently in his capacity as a media commentator on national health care, what reasonable person would ever argue over a uniform approach to injections that centrally incorporates the notion "one needle, one syringe, only one time"?