Greedy Trial Lawyer
Outpatient Surgery - Do Risks Outweigh Benefits?
Category: Seeing Clearly Now
A surgeon is supposed to inform a surgical candidate of the risks and benefits of the surgical procedure. This information, when provided, enables the patient to give an informed consent to the surgery.
In at least 31% of scheduled surgeries there also is a need for a discussion of the risks and benefits of using the particular surgical facility.
The spotlight grows on outpatient surgery
[R}isks...exist when a patient chooses to have surgery outside a hospital and far from emergency medical services, says Lee Fleisher, chairman of anesthesiology and critical care for the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia.Fleisher has studied those risks and says that as the number of outpatient surgical centers blossoms, it's key for patients to learn the benefits and drawbacks of non-hospital-based surgery. Of the 50 million surgeries performed annually, he says, 31% occur at free-standing ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) where no hospital or emergency department is attached and patients go home the same day
Fleisher is concerned that as more older patients and people with multiple chronic conditions choose surgery at outpatient clinics, adequate postoperative and emergency services may not be at hand.
Minorities and older patients with multiple medical problems are more likely to require postoperative emergency care, several studies show. "We're concerned that as more ASCs perform more surgeries on older, higher-risk groups, those people will not be close enough to emergency services if they need them," Fleisher says.
From USA Today
Since outpatient surgical centers are frequently owned by surgeons, just how often are the risks of using the facility mentioned or properly presented? And, while we are on the topic, just how often is the surgical patient told who owns the facility? Just wondering.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/661
Comments
I could not agree more regarding "Doctors are too human." As a seriously injured victim of malpractice, I continue to be a victim in my efforts to prosecute my offender. If doctors were held responsible for their mistakes, as we are in a car "accident" being OUR fault (e.g. not paying attention, bad decisions, wreckless disregard), there would be far less error in my opinion. The police do not let us off for "accidents" because we have a good driving record or the highest paid attorneys, that is why we all have insurance. In fact, you are written a citation on the spot! For me, it's been six years waiting to go to trial. Every court date we get, we get pushed away. In addition to being a victim of malpractice, I am also the victim of their harassment, insults, greed and playing a game of who has the most money to win. No one knows until they become a victim just how outrageous not only the pain brings, but the loss of justice. As for who owns the facility, in my case it is a rent-a-doctor for the emergency room and the part owner of the agency is also director of the hospital where I was ruined.
Posted by: Melinda Cunningham at August 29, 2007 08:04 PM