Chemnick | Moen | Greenstreet

Medical Malpractice. It's All We Do. 206-443-8600

The CMG Voice

Online doctor reviews – some health care institutions actually think more is better

Posted Monday, November 20, 2017 by Tyler Goldberg-Hoss

Technology marches on. The ways in which we get health care changes. Hopefully, marketplaces are created that allow health care consumers to pick and choose which providers they want to see.

In these scenarios, it is no wonder that patients take their impressions of the providers they see to the Internet. Websites, including Yelp, Healthgrades, Ratemds, and others have for some time published the reviews of doctors posted by patients. Most of these reviews are either favorable, or at least respectful in their criticism. Rarely, the review is of a kind that prompts the reviewed doctor to contemplate legal action, including hiring an attorney to sue the reviewer for defamation.

While legal action may be the right avenue for some doctors, other health care institutions are thinking about it a little differently, actually calling for more reviews, and posting them all (for the most part) on their websites. University of Utah was the first hospital to begin posting such comments on their website in 2012, and since then a number of other hospitals have followed suit.

Supporters of this transparency say that it forces some providers who get negative reviews to think about changing behavior and improving the relationship they have with their patients. Further, posting unedited comments (and not just cleaned up favorable reviews) allows for consumers to feel like they are getting better information from which to make decisions about which doctor to see.

Certainly there are bad apples in every bunch, and comments may be unfair. Hospitals often allow doctors to review the comments and appeal to an internal committee if the doctor can show that a particular review is unfair or untrue. And there will still be places like Yelp where patients can and will post negative reviews, and if the post is particularly unfair, untrue, and damaging to a doctor’s business, the reviewer may be subject to legal action. But it is the hope of many hospitals that greater transparency will be a net benefit.

You can read more about this here:

Some solicit, others sue: Doctors take various tacks to respond to online reviews

Permalink to this entry

New legal battle in fight over the opioid epidemic: suing the Joint Commission

Posted Thursday, November 16, 2017 by Tyler Goldberg-Hoss

Municipalities all over the country have begun filing lawsuits against the manufacturers and distributors of opioid medications, including here in Washington State.

However, in what appears to be a first of its kind, Cities in West Virginia have banded together to sue The Joint Commission, a non-profit accreditation entity, for spreading misinformation about the risks of opioid prescriptions and addiction, in part due to the cozy financial relationship it shared and shares with the manufacturers of the medication.

The Joint Commission is a nonprofit that accredits more than 20,000 health care organizations, including hospitals, across the US. Most every governmental entity in the US recognizes that the Joint Commission accreditation is a condition of licensure and receipt of Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. The Joint Commission, then, is an authority in the US regarding safe practices in medicine.

The lawsuit claims that, starting with the first Pain Management Standards in 2001, the Joint Commission has downplayed the seriousness of opioid addiction, the result of collaborating on the standards with the makers of the drugs. This includes relying on research for these standards from groups who were accepting drug company money.

It is unclear whether the lawsuit will be successful, and even what “success” means in such a case. Certainly The Joint Commission does not have the deep pockets of some of the defendant manufacturers like Purdue Pharma. However, considering how accreditation from The Joint Commission is necessary for hospitals, it may put pressure on The Commission to relax pain management standards at West Virginia hospitals, so that the hospitals don’t have to choose between keeping their accreditation and prescribing fewer such drugs.

You can read an article on this here:

‘This is just the beginning’: Scope of opioid lawsuits widens to include hospital accreditor

Permalink to this entry

Does the time of day affect your outcome from open-heart surgery?

Posted Monday, November 13, 2017 by Tyler Goldberg-Hoss

Who would have thunk it?

Researchers in France have recently published the results of a study that looked at the rates of complications in patients who underwent heart valve replacement surgery in the morning versus the afternoon.

The study involved observing about 600 patients who had such surgery for six years. The study found that patients who had surgery in the afternoon had half the risk of a major cardiac event (like a heart attack) as those who had surgery in the morning.

One of the authors of the study suggested that a person’s circadian clock is at least part of the reason. And this isn’t the first time that medical researchers have considered the time of day and how medical treatments work. Other studies have shown that the efficacy of certain cancer treatments and vaccines may be affected by the time of day when the therapy or medicine is given.

These findings may be useful in treating patients in the future. First, scientists are testing whether they can “trick” heart muscle into healing in the way afternoon patients heal regardless of day. Further, it may mean that higher risk patients should be operated on in the afternoon.

You can read an article on these findings here:

Why having surgery later in the day might be better for your health

Permalink to this entry

If you need kidney or rectal surgery, is robot-assisted surgery better?

Posted Friday, November 10, 2017 by Tyler Goldberg-Hoss

You may have heard by now: robot-assisted surgeries are a real thing. Since the early 2000s, hospitals have been buying these million dollar plus robots, such as the daVinci Surgical System, to assist surgeons in minimally invasive surgeries such as gallbladder removals. These robots use the same or similar access points as a laparoscopic surgery (small holes in the abdomen, through which cameras and other tools are inserted to do the surgery).

When surgeons use these robotic devices, instead of holding on to the tools themselves in a patient’s body (like in a traditional laparoscopic surgery), they manipulate controls outside of the patient’s body, and those controls correspond to movements of surgical tools in the body. While there have been critics of the use of these robots – citing the steep learning curve for surgeons, and the cost – it appears these robots are here to stay, at least in the short term.

Recently The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) investigated the utility of robot-assisted surgeries in the context of both kidney surgery and rectal surgery. They were particularly looking at how the results differed from traditional laparoscopic techniques.

The study looking at kidney surgery found that, between 2003 and 2015 the use of robotic-assisted surgery surged from 1.5% to 27%. There was no significant difference from the perspective of patient safety (similar complication rates), robot-assisted procedures typically took longer and cost more.

Another study looked at the differences between the two approaches in rectal surgery, and in particular, whether there was a difference in the rates of times when surgeons needed to convert the minimally invasive procedure (using just the small holes) to a laparotomy (a large incision through the abdominal wall to gain access to the abdominal cavity).

There are many reasons that laparoscopic surgeries, including those with and without robotic-assistance, are favored in many cases. These reasons include less chance of bleeding, typically shortened recovery time, less scarring, and less postoperative pain.

In that context, all things being equal, surgeons (and patients) who initially start with a minimally invasive technique would prefer not to convert to a laparotomy if possible.

The study found that there was no difference between traditional laparoscopic surgeries and robot-assisted surgeries in the rate such surgeries convert to laparotomies.

These two studies indicate that, while there is potential for robot-assisted surgery to be beneficial to patients in the future, at present, at least in the context of kidney and rectal surgery, no benefit clearly exists.

You can read about the two studies here:

Association of Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy With Perioperative Outcomes and Health Care Costs, 2003 to 2015

Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer

Permalink to this entry

Can Herbal Supplements Damage Your Liver?

Posted Monday, November 6, 2017 by Gene Moen

The answer is yes, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Dr. Victor Navarro said at a press briefing that “herbal supplements are a common cause of liver injury.” He went on to say that “there are lots of products that are difficult to identify what they and what they’re used for.”

In a study of drug-induced liver injuries, it was found that 20% were caused by dietary supplements. Many of these products were sold as bodybuilding supplements or weight-loss supplements. There are two ways in which the products can be dangerous: they may include ingredients that are not listed on their labels, or they may be adulterated with additives on purpose (to support for purpose for which it is being marketed, such as for sexual enhancement).

In the study, people with drug-induced liver damage had used over 300 different dietary supplements. Chemical analysis of these products found some with hepatotoxins such as anabolic steroids or other pharmaceuticals, although the labels did not so indicate. One problem with using such “natural” or “herbal” products is that it is assumed there is nothing harmful in them. “Natural” in most people’s minds equates with “harmless.” But, unlike drugs, these supplements are not regulated or approved by the FDA. The companies that make these products often fail to list all of the ingredients or fail to test for toxicities or other problems that can arise from their use.

Physicians studying the causal relationship between the products and liver injuries found that identifying the problem often led to the product no longer being sold, but they are then replaced with a different product or at least one with changed labels. One positive outcome of the studies, according to Dr. Norah Turreault of the University of California San Francisco, is that “it highlights the fact that these herbal products contain ingredients that are unknown to the patients taking them.” The message to consumers is “don’t assume that a ‘natural’ or ‘herbal’ product can only help you — it can also cause serious damage.”

Permalink to this entry

Chemnick | Moen | Greenstreet
115 NE 100th St #220, Seattle, WA 98125 US
Phone: 206-443-8600
Fax: 206-443-6904