12.18.2009
12.05.2009
11.29.2009
Psychology of being sick
11.23.2009
This is the best brain buster I have ever heard...
11.06.2009
Types of pain
10.26.2009
10.25.2009
no time to write...
9.07.2009
Poem
7.25.2009
Officer v Gentleman
7.22.2009
Blind taste test.
7.21.2009
UPS worker shot in cold blood
7.18.2009
State tax info
7.13.2009
30 years old
6.28.2009
Adventures in medical malpractice...
FYI - EMTALA the emergency medical treatment active labor act - passed in 1986 is essentially says:
"Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives." - regardless of ability to pay/insurance.
Here are EMTALA ramifications for individual physician liability. The following are a couple of cases that have set precedents that have guided practice protocols.
If the patient is erroneously diagnosed, and the physician mistakenly believes that he does not have an "emergency medical condition", when in fact he does, several courts have held that [EMTALA] does not apply to that case. Urban v. King, 834 F Supp 1328 (1993). There could, of course, be a claim for professional negligence for failure to make a diagnosis under State malpractice law in this situation.
The court in Jones v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 538 (E.D.N.C. 1991) stated that EMTALA requires only that a medical screening procedure be established and that it be followed in every case, without regard to ability to pay, and that EMTALA is not violated even if the screening procedure is insufficient under state malpractice law.
Some of the cases have suggested otherwise, however. There was a brief mention in Deberry v. Sherman Hospital Association, 741 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ill.1990), to the effect that a hospital could be found to be in violation of EMTALA for failure to diagnose an emergency medical condition through an inadequate screening procedure. This principle is at least implicitly recognized in other cases as well. See, for example, Power v. Arlington Hospital, 42 F3d 851 (4th Cir 1994) (failure to order CBC, leading to missed diagnosis of sepsis).
The most prominent case on this point is Summers v. Baptist Medical Center of Arkadelphia, 69 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1995), rev on reh en banc 91 F.3d 1132 (1996). In that case, an examination of a patient who had fallen from a tree stand while hunting was allegedly incomplete because a chest x-ray had not been included when a set of spinal x-rays was ordered. The physician did not believe that the patient had any fractures, and discharged him home, with instructions. There was no transfer to another facility involved. The patient presented at another hospital two days later, and he was diagnosed with an acute comminuted vertebral fracture, a sternal fracture, and bilateral hemopneumothoraces secondary to untreated rib fractures.
6.22.2009
6.21.2009
Learning insight
6.04.2009
Learning Photoshop
6.03.2009
6.02.2009
A real lottery ticket
6.01.2009
Right rudder
5.27.2009
Can you feel the g's?
Here is what medical school is like to me.
Oh its there trust me, cAMP is everywhere, you just can't see it.
Here is a new paper out this month.