Informed consent under heat in Wisconsin
Medical Staff Leader Connection, April 28, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court's decision that found a physician negligent for failing to inform a patient about the option of undergoing a stroke test after diagnosing him with a condition marked by stroke-like symptoms, reports American Medical News. Thomas Jandre arrived at the St. Joseph Hospital West Bend emergency department in 2003, complaining of dizziness, slurred speech, and facial paralysis. Therese J. Bullis, MD, evaluated Jandre, ordered a CT scan to check for hemorrhagic stroke, and ultimately diagnosed him with Bell’s palsy. She failed to order a carotid ultrasound, which would have ruled out ischemic stroke. Jandre had a stroke 11 days after visiting the emergency room. In 2004, Jandre sued Bullis, alleging that the doctor misdiagnosed him negligently and failed to disclose information necessary for him to make an informed decision about his treatment. While some claim that patients have the right to know all of the testing and treatment options for all possible diagnoses related to their symptoms, others argue that applying the informed consent law too broadly would increase the practice of defensive medicine, where doctors order every test in the book in an effort not to get sued.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Related Products
-
The Medical Executive Committee Handbook, Third Edition
Updated to reflect the new 2007 Joint Commission standards, this best-selling resource offers practical tools and strategies...
-
Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide, Sixth Edition
Written by experienced medical staff leaders currently working in hospitals, The Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide...
-
Assessing the Competency of Low-Volume Practitioners:
The Joint Commission requires that hospitals verify physician competence using performance data. Yet organizations often...
-
The Final Verdict on MS.01.01.01:
The Joint Commission has finalized and communicated the changes to MS.01.01.01. This program will not restate what you...
-
Medical Staff Briefing
This monthly resource acts as a support system by providing time-saving tools, expert advice, and analyses to help you...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched