Consent Required??

[You Are Guilty]

Was there a separate consent form for the anesthesia? That would be where I would expect it to note the "possible" need for a cath.

As an aside, most people would probably be shocked at the long term infection rates of urinary caths. I will leave it to others to check the actual numbers, but I have heard upwards of a 5% chance per day of developing an infection. (I have no clue what the 'complications' were in this case, but UTIs are probably the most common).

 

[ecmst12]

When a cath is left in for a long time, yes that's a big risk. But if you're talking about having one in for 24 hours during and after surgery (it's usually removed the next morning post-op), especially combined with the antibiotics that they usually give before, during, or after surgery, the risk is not very high.

 

[ajkroy]

I fail to see the "horror" that the patient experienced with this. Do you realize that my Medical Assisting students, high school students, no less, place catheters in patients routinely? It is really an extremely common procedure. Did the patient have his blood drawn? Did it need to be explained to him that a piece of metal would puncture his skin and enter his bloodstream, or did he "discover" it afterward? See where I'm going with this?

 

[tranquility]

Just tried to rise to YAG's challenge and find the numbers all over the place with the general agreement it is the #1 acute care acquired infection.

Side note, systemic antibiotics are NOT "useful in preventing urinary tract infection with indwelling catheter use. [Source: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.wocn.org/resource/collection/6D79B935-1AA0-4791-886F-E361D29F152D/Catheter_Associated_Urinary_Tract_Infections_(CAUTI)_-_FS_(2008).pdf]. But, the short term usage by the recommendation "Remove urinary catheters as soon as possible (for operative patients who have an indication for a catheter preferably remove within 24 hours" is. [Source: http://www.apic.org/Resource_/EliminationGuideForm/c0790db8-2aca-4179-a7ae-676c27592de2/File/APIC-CAUTI-Guide.pdf]

 

[ivanl3]

I fail to see the "horror" that the patient experienced with this.

That's b/c those details were not shared with you b/c they were not relevant to the question posed. And b/c they are none of you business.

Not I did not. Nor do I care Do you realize my refrigerator is stainless steel?

It is really an extremely common procedure. Did the patient have his blood drawn? Did it need to be explained to him that a piece of metal would puncture his skin and enter his bloodstream, or did he "discover" it afterward? See where I'm going with this?

You're right. Sticking a tube up a man's penis into his bladder without his knowledge and consent are analogous to drawing blood. What was I thinking? See where I went there?

 

[ivanl3]

Was there a separate consent form for the anesthesia?

Yes there was. Nothing specific about a urinary cath was spelled out in it. Perhaps there was generic language that would have covered it. I cannot say for sure.

 

[Zigner]

Yes there was. Nothing specific about a urinary cath was spelled out in it. Perhaps there was generic language that would have covered it. I cannot say for sure.

Right ...

 

[ecmst12]

It's actually analagous to inserting an IV. To medical personnel, a penis is not any more special than a vein, it's just a body part. If it needs to be accessed in order to effectively treat the patient, that is exactly what they are going to do. It's true that being in the hospital or getting an operation can make a patient feel a bit like a piece of meat. Maintaining privacy whenever possible is a primary concern of the medical staff - but NOT more important than providing proper treatment.

 

[ivanl3]

Right ...

Hopefully it is a moot point, but something tells me if long term complications persisted, an out of court settlement would be reached here regardless of any such generic language. There is no denying that the patient had no understanding or appreciation of this risk. The doc dropped the ball in that regard, IMO. And I believe that rather than risking a large award from a court, the case would be settled.

Again, hopefully it is a moot point.

 

[ivanl3]

It's actually analagous to inserting an IV. To medical personnel, a penis is not any more special than a vein, it's just a body part.

I disagree and I think most medical professionals would as well. And in addition, we are not just talking about a penis here, we are talking about a bladder too.

Maintaining privacy whenever possible is a primary concern of the medical staff - but NOT more important than providing proper treatment.

I agree but don't follow the relevance to this situation.

 

[Zigner]

I think you have a very optimistic outlook on this situation. Good luck

 

[ecmst12]

Settlements are not offered because of complications in the absence of negligence.

 

[ivanl3]

Settlements are not offered because of complications in the absence of negligence.

I think the informed consent question would be enough to trigger a settlement, if and only if, long term complications occurred. I think this link supports my position:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/medical-malpractice-informed-consent-29872.html

I concede that it is not open-and-shut, but I think there is a strong enough argument that a settlement would be reached if long term complications persisted.

 

[Zigner]

Settlements are not offered because of complications in the absence of negligence.

ivan's read Nolo - he's got it all figured out now.

 

[ecmst12]

You are not as smart as you seem to think you are.