The patients are listening

[MillCreek]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/anesthesiologist-trashes-sedated-patient-jury-orders-her-to-pay-500000/2015/06/23/cae05c00-18f3-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html

Words fail me.

[Monkeyleg]

Real professionals. 

[dogmush]

Certainly unprofessional and rude.

But cry me a freakin river.  You got your 'scope done and left.  Dude got half a mil because some folks were mean to him.  "Northern Virginia Syndrome" indeed.

[Ned Hamford]

I'm a bit skeptical of the half mil payout; the jury specifically sought to make an example of the defendant to discourage others from similar misbehavior  Of course how I feel about such scapegoat payouts depends which side of the case I most see myself working 

I'd be interested if they ever filed a criminal complaint against the doctor.  I don't know the law for that state but falsifying medical records is a usual category or subcategory of fraud. 

[mtnbkr]

That's in my office building, downstairs from us.

Chris

[K Frame]

That's in my office building, downstairs from us.

Chris

Now you know who to go to for your next steel eel!


I'm sort of torn on this one. The falsification of medical records SHOULD be penalized, but by licensing boards.

The payout because they talked trash about him... I'm sort of on the fence over that.

[Ben]

I went drugless for my colonoscopy when my ride stiffed me at the last minute. Slight discomfort, but no monkey business. The hottie nurse and me talked fly fishing through the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMLKbXuv-xA

[BryanP]

I found this part interesting. Can you really be considered a party to the conversation if you're unconscious?

The doctors’ attorneys argued that the recording was illegal, but the man’s attorneys noted that Virginia is a “one-party consent” state, meaning that only one person involved in a conversation need agree to the recording.

[MillCreek]

I have handled a few defamation claims in the malpractice setting.  Your malpractice insurance covers you for that, but not the punitive damages.  So the small amount of punitive damages that were assessed were paid out of pocket, not by the insurance company.

And I can see why plaintiff counsel wanted to get this case in front of a jury.  They were pissed off when they heard the recording and assessed a verdict accordingly.

[230RN]

I found this part interesting. Can you really be considered a party to the conversation if you're unconscious?

The doctors’ attorneys argued that the recording was illegal, but the man’s attorneys noted that Virginia is a “one-party consent” state, meaning that only one person involved in a conversation need agree to the recording.

I wondered if that was why the recorder was supposedly left on "inadvertently" --for CYA reasons.

[AJ Dual]

I wondered if that was why the recorder was supposedly left on "inadvertently" --for CYA reasons.

How about P*YA reasons too?

*Probe...

[230RN]

That confused me until I saw your assterisk.

[vaskidmark]

I a truly shocked at some of the comments here.

Not only is there an expectation of professionalism (which includes not trash-talking your patient) in professional standards but also in the need of patients to feel confident they are getting appropriate care.  That expectation lowers quickly when you find out how your healthcare provider feels about you when your back is figuratively as well as literally turned.

As for the instruction to place  a false diagnosis in the patient record - it could be anything as small as fluffing the third-party reimbursement to what eventually turns out to be life threatening.  Whichever end of the spectrum it falls at, it results in a loss of confidence in the provider.

If recording while out like a light were ruled to be not a party to the conversation then baby monitors and all sorts of audio security systems are going to be wrapped up in that decision.  I don't think it's got a leg to stand on.

stay safe.

[lupinus]

Color me unphased and unsympathetic to the doc and his team. There's an expectation of professionalism, and even more so an expectation that a procedure, and it's follow up, will be performed correctly and thoroughly.

Trash talking your patient, making fun of a medic condition, crying that he's a difficult stick, rushing a procedure, and failing to provide proper follow up care? Don't like getting fined and judgments do your *expletive deleted*ing job in a professional manner.

[Perd Hapley]

Whichever end of the spectrum it falls at...

Whichever end of the...   Oh, you said "spectrum." OK, nevermind.

[RoadKingLarry]

I'm less concerned with the unprofessional, childish part than I am with the fraudulent diagnosis. The first deserves a smack on the wrist and some "grow the *expletive deleted*ck up" training as well as some punitive damages to the patient. At the very least no charge for the procedure and related expenses. The second deserves a loss of license and fines.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I a truly shocked at some of the comments here.

Not only is there an expectation of professionalism (which includes not trash-talking your patient) in professional standards but also in the need of patients to feel confident they are getting appropriate care.  That expectation lowers quickly when you find out how your healthcare provider feels about you when your back is figuratively as well as literally turned.

As for the instruction to place  a false diagnosis in the patient record - it could be anything as small as fluffing the third-party reimbursement to what eventually turns out to be life threatening.  Whichever end of the spectrum it falls at, it results in a loss of confidence in the provider.

If recording while out like a light were ruled to be not a party to the conversation then baby monitors and all sorts of audio security systems are going to be wrapped up in that decision.  I don't think it's got a leg to stand on.

stay safe.

This. So this.

Trust is an important part of any medical procedure, especially when the patient is going to be unconscious.
The trash talk could also be indicative of poor patient care. It's a distraction and could have ramifications like a doctor missing something important or making an assumption that leads to a misdiagnosis. As it was, the doctor charted a non existing condition and ignored a rash (yes, it was a rash already being treated, but it was a medical condition and one would hope any doctor would take a moment and a gander to make sure it's what the patient thought) because he didn't give a crap about his patient or his job, apparently.

Now, I get that human nature is a nasty thing and that professionals often talk trash about their clients because clients are stupid.
But you talk trash in the privacy of the break room when you are not actually working.

[Blakenzy]

The only thing that is truly disturbing is the false diagnosis put on the chart. That's really really really bad. Maybe the part about avoiding/ignoring him afterwards (no patient follow-up? didn't quite get that part)...

All the rest? Meh... although all the rest, trash talking, etc. could be a symptom of what led to putting a false diagnosis on a medical chart. So yeah, complex issue, but the patient should get over himself... ego getting bruised while you are unconscious? Not worthy of a half million ca-ching! law suit. I don't see the defamation unless the Dr. tweeted "Mr. So n' So who lives on xyz St. is on my table and he has mutant syphylitic hemorroidal tuberculosis on the D! LOL ". We would have never known that, if it were not for the patient himself making it public now. If as a society we are going to sue Doctors for having a personal opinion about their patients we are going down the wrong road.

[MechAg94]

I tend to agree about the commetary.  If the guy was awake, a decent bed-side manner is part of the job.  Outside of that, I could care less about talk.  In my job, we might cuss and bitch about things with the plant guys, but still maintain professional behavior in meetings or with customers/suppliers.  I wouldn't call the first part unprofessional at all.  

I also tend to agree with the doctor's lawyer that this should not have been a legal recording....but I am sure there are details to those rules I don't know about.