A culture of silence remains about medical errors, but things are slowly improving, physician-activist says

There has been a culture of silence when it comes to talking about medical errors, but things are slowly changing, writes Dr. Kevin Kavanagh, right, in an op-ed piece in the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Kavanagh, who is chairman of Health Watch USA, recalls an incident in which a patient came to be treated for a severe sinus infection. Upon being rushed to surgery, Kavanagh discovered "an old smelly gauze pack" had been left in the sinus from a previous operation. When an assistant asked Kavanagh what he should tell the patient, "I answered, 'The truth'," for which he was disciplined by a senior surgeon.

"Years have passed, and things are starting to change in medicine," Kavanagh writes. "Telling patients that something went wrong is slowly being accepted — a revolutionary idea to medicine."

Studies have shown that hospitals with full-disclosure policies actually have lower patient death rates, which Kavanagh just called "common sense." "If preventable patient harm occurs on a ward and the patient is not told, almost all of the employees on the ward will know about the cover-up," he writes. "How then will the administration garner the respect to effectively oversee the functioning of personnel? If hospital staff are not performing adequately, how do you discharge them when there are skeletons in the closet?"

Full disclosure also lowers malpractice expenses, Kavanagh contends. Stanford University hospitals had a 36 percent drop in malpractice claims and has saved $3.2 million since it adopted a full-disclosure policy in 2007. University of Michigan had a 40 percent drop in new claims and saves $2 million each year.

But full disclosure is not common in Kentucky, despite the Veterans Affairs hospitals in Lexington being the first to implement full disclosure in the country. "Instead of this practice spreading throughout Kentucky, the next health-care system to implement it was the University of Michigan," Kavanagh writes.

Things need to change, especially in the face of superbugs like MRSA. As he looked back at the incident involving the botched sinus surgery, "I am most bothered that I apologized for my actions," Kavanagh writes. "Now I would reserve the words, 'I'm sorry' for the patients who have been harmed." (Read more)

Federal agency is pressured to re-post online database of doctors' malpractice and disciplinary cases

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley has joined journalists, academic researchers and consumer groups in calling on the Health Resources and Services Administration to put back online the National Practitioner Data Bank, a database of malpractice and disciplinary cases against doctors.

"In a strongly worded letter, the Iowa Republican, who has led investigations of fraud and waste in government health programs, said the now-removed file 'serves as the backbone in providing transparency for bad-acting health care professionals'," Duff Wilson of The New York Times reports. Grassley gave HRSA, part of the the Department of Health and Human Services, until Oct. 21 to hand over documents and answer a series of questions, ending with "What is your timeline for getting the database up and running again?"

For a PDF of Grassley's letter, click here. Under pressure, the agency has scheduled a conference call on the issue for Thursday, Oct. 13, from 1 to 2 p.m. Eastern Time.

The database "was created in 1986 for hospitals, medical boards, insurers and others to share information so that bad doctors do not slip through cracks in reporting," Wilson writes. The law makes doctors' names confidential, but the database has a Public Use File for researchers and journalists, in which doctors are identified only by numbers.

Some journalists have been able to identify doctors using information from other sources, such as lawsuits. "After a complaint by one doctor identified by The Kansas City Star, the agency threatened the newspaper reporter with a fine, pulled the doctor’s file from its Web site on Sept. 1 and began a review of how to hide the identities better," Wilson reports. "Its actions provoked protests" from the Association of Health Care Journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other groups. In a letter, they told HRSA, "Nothing in the Public Use File can be used to identify individuals if reporters or researchers don’t already know for whom they are searching."

Grassley wrote, "It seems disturbing and bizarre that HRSA would attempt to chill a reporter’s First Amendment activity with threats of fines for merely 'republishing' public information from one source and connecting it with public information from another. A journalist’s shoe-leather reporting is no justification for such threats or for HRSA to shut down public access to information that Congress intended to be public."

The Public Use File can be downloaded from the website of Investigative Reporters and Editors, one of the groups, protesting its removal from the HRSA site, but "that file will be more and more out-of-date as the dispute goes on," Wilson notes. She also reports that Robert E. Oshel, associate director for research and disputes in the Division of Practitioner Data Banks, says the agency is misinterpreting the law. (Read more)