patient attends community podiatry for routine nail care and plantar cal reduction.
Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
medical history shows pvd.
noted as at risk foot due to this.
during treatment pod flap hems patient.
after appropriate dressing patient is asked to attend in 1 week to check wound.
at this check the area has failed to show healing.
outcome patient fails to heal and sometime later has a bka.
the solicitors letter has the line " the patient has never had any problems before this visit" and the claim is for malpractice.
should the patient have consented to routine podiatry with a consent type form that outlines all risks of podiatry treatment?
is this a acceptable clinic risk?
what's your views?
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
Tony
Could you please explain what a "flap hem" is - the terminology conjures up all sorts of unpleasant thoughts most of which would undoubtedly provoke a malpractice claim?
I would need to know more. What agent was used to cauterise the wound? What dressing and what off loading was applied? What advice was the patient given? Why the delay in reviewing the wound? What happened subsequently? What protocols were followed including referral guidelines to the specialist wound care team and vascular surgeon?
Accidents happen. It's called adverse outcomes and its an acceptable clinical risk. It's what you do subsequently that determines liability. -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
hi mark
skin flap made by scalpel during debridement say .5-1. cm shallow.
scenario is around some complaints i have seen over the years but follows how some have progressed.
in the case of dressing it would have been sterile gauze and tape say hapla and the only off loading would be what was needed for soft tissue lesions but would be limited due skin fragility risks in the ischemic foot.
may have used kaltostat but as reduced microvascular supply bleeding limited.
the follow up dressing was based on a nhs type community clinic attended one a week.
patient would have been advised to call if any problems.
standard advice at this point would have been to keep dressing dry and clean.
the pathway following the second visit usually would be dressing with possible felt off loading and referral to the high risk team.
the question is around the claim made to the pod that made the skin flap and that prior to this the patient had never had a foot problem and perceived the cause of her/his leg loss was this incident. the patient had no complaints at the care following this.
So is debridement in this case for painful cal and the injury an excepted clinical risk
and if so should we get written consent for routine debridement in the high risk patient? -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
Is this just a hypothesis or is it an actual case? Actually, better you don't answer that. Let's assume its hypothetical.
So there is this podiatrist - call him Mr SWIM and he has a bad day and inadvertently trumps whilst seeing this high risk vascular compromised patient and slices the No 10 through a significant rump of plantar skin. What would we expect him to do? Certainly stop the bleed. That helps. Nothing worse than blood skooshing over the side of their shoes when exiting your surgery - aside from unnerving the next patient(s), there's always the risk from slipping - and you know the size of the form you have to fill in if you work for the NHS and this happens. Indeed, it would be better if the patient died at this point, rather than slip and fracture a hip, say.
So SWIM appiles direct pressure and maybe a strand or two of sorbsan and a sterile dressing and tape and sends her away, fingers crossed. No way SWIM would have used FeCl3 or AgNo3 or even viper's venom due to her desperate circulation - unless she was a traffic warden or a Tory or a relative of Tony Blair - in which case a small blow-torch might have been considered.
And SWIM would have thought about the off-loading issue - as it's really quite important. Best way is just to keep off her feet altogether and he would have counselled that - after apologising profusely for the trump and slice incident. And he might have arranged someone to go round to see her - maybe a relative or a carer. And of course he would have called her later that evening to see how she was.
Being that sort of person, SWIM would have said "fcuk the NHS protocols" I would like to see this lady back in two days so he could check the wound had closed and see if it was healing uneventfully. If it wasn't, then he would arrange some Flucox as a prophylaxis and see if he could get her into a non-weightbearing air cast boot - just to be absolutely sure it was not going to be subject to any pressure.
He might see he back again in a couple of days - just to check her progress - and no doubt at this point things would be moving on nicely, but if it wasn't and thing were beginning to seem ominous and SWIm wasn't sure what he could do next - then he would sit down and get on the telephone and speak to her GP and say "look pal, I'm no happy with this" and not hang up until the GP has promised on his daughter's life that this poor lady would be admitted for obs.
That's what I might expect to see happening. Start from the point where you imagine you were on the receiving end of the trump and slice and your circulation was knackered. What would you expect to be done and when?
Its fairly easy after that. -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
Comes down to an informed consent issue, not really malpractice, but a clinical incident, that the patient may well be entitled to compensation for. There is always a need for the patient to also take some responsibility, and expert advise may well indicate that the BKA would have happened anyway. -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
Pardon, did I read a cut 0.5 to 1cm as a flap! Bet that was more painful than the callus in the first place. Sure patients have to take some responsibility as part of a negotiated treatment plan, but if they consented to callus debridement and are aware of the risks involved surely they have a right to expect that the pod can use a scalpel with reasonable competence. I think Mr SWIM might be SUNK.
Ros -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
Bill Liggins -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
hi the pathway you describe seems a little drastic following a small cut and a primary sterile dressing would normally be the correct treatment and will 9 out of 10 times be all thats needed.
when ischemic lesions fail to respond vascular assessment is the most vital thing needed along with pain control.
? antibiotics with no infection
do you think sutures would be wise in the plantar of an ischemic patient with fragile skin and the use of air cast in a vascular compromised patient may put more compression on the compromised vessels?
we as pods cut/hem patients by mistake a number of times no matter how much skill or care (even when not farting!!) i think the leaflet idea at 1st contact is a good one -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
-
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
yes really
get out clause for malpractice or clinical risk!
that is the question ,if patient information and informed consent aided by fully understanding the risk of treatment is made safer with a leaflet then yep i will use it as my get out clause.
never cut anyone by accident? -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
(I hope) This was a great hypothetical scenario for learning outcomes. -
Re: Malpractice or clinical risk? Iatrogenic inury in PVD
A leaflet is an aid to the overall treatment plan, its not a get out clause for poor care. That is not a minor cut described previously, it's a clinical "insult" to a limb threatened patient. A minor capillary heam' may occur, but should not be expected. The after care in this case is very poor. Certainly if I was the expert witness in court reviewing this case, leaflet or not, I would have to say that this is malpractice. This is not the level of care that a patient should reasonably expect from a podiatrist who feels competent to treat an "at risk" patient. But as Mark says we'll assume its hypothetical.
Ros -
Re: Malpractice or clinical risk? Iatrogenic inury in PVD
Slightly off topic, but this thread reminds me of a lecture I endured from a vascular surgeon >20 yrs ago in which he listed 5 or 6 causes of amputation in those with critical limb ischaemia - one of those causes was "Podiatry"! ... I had to admit to myself begrudgingly that he was probably right. Several others have related similar stories to me. -
would you then say that the clinical risk for cal debridement in this case could result in loss of limb? if the podiatrist makes a mistake with a sharp scalpel.
or is the mistake in this case malpractice.
what did the pod do wrong?
he dressed the area booked a follow up advised to call if any problems, what do you think?
the outcome will probably be the same from the "accident" bka? -
These sorts of things happen and having a bad outcome does not automatically mean malpractice ... I guess the real issue is if the quality of the care afterwards (wound dressing regime; advice on what to do; return period for checks; need for vascular consult; etc) was adequate or not.
I guess the "legal arguments" would be around if "call if any problems" was strong enough advice; if the return period should have been sooner or not; if a vascular consult referral should have been made earlier etc -
PVD or not, is a patient entitled to a degree of skill sufficient to expect that a breach in the skin will not occur by accident ? If the answer is yes, then they have a case for damages.
If you cause an accident whilst driving, your insurance pays up !
Any subsequent first aid, however appropriate, will not diminish the liability. -
We have a high risk procedure consent form. Debridement, TCC, surgery, cam walkers.......Etc, run through a checklist of what's involved and get it signed off. I have heard (from drunken lawyers on my rugby team) that these forms aren't worth the paper they are written on and a good lawyer will still have you. But these go through all the department channels to get approval.
Best defence = documentation, regardless.
Cheers -
Unless your performing an amputation, do not use a scalpel in an ischemic foot. Refer to vascular.
Steven -
One must always consider the possibility of doing nothing. I have a suspicion (hypothetically of course) that the pain the patient c/o was due to ischeamia and that's how Mr SWIM got into so much poo because there was no real callus to debride and the tissue was not well perfused. So with this level of PVD referral to the vascular people would have been appropriate with debridement, if required, performed in the controlled environment of a HRFC. So technically that's not doing nothing that's being wise with the best interests of the patient being pivotal. Having said all that, if that is the level of after care for any patient with or without PVD who receives a severe wound like that during treatment the hypothetical protocol needs revisiting with the greatest hypothetical speed.
Ros -
risks and benefits is that not how most care treatments are worked out ?
i agree with the do nothing and no scalpel work thinking as the avoiding risk thinking but painful cal is painful cal and the patient may expect some benefit.
i have also seen the same scenario in vascular compromised patients with O/C and problem nails but in this case doing nothing is usually not an option.
yes vascular consultant assessment is paramount but not all PVD PAD patients have stents/bi-pass grafts so the patients are still going to end up in your chair for treatment.
call if any problems i agree is a general statement but what other advice could you give as it covers every thing.
Dressings i feel were appropriate for the lesion and timescale may seem long but is in my experience quite normal as the patient would have contact numbers ect.
at 48 hours what would you expect to see in a small wound in a pad patient? could you make the call that it was not healing at this point? yes bleeding may occur but patient would have seen this and called.
I wonder how the our US pods would manage this due to higher litigation? -
The podiatrist is frequently the health care professional that makes the call to get more invasive care for patients from vascular teams when the patients foot pathology deteriorates. Putting a whacking great flap cut in a high pressure area of the foot requires the patient to have something more than gauze and a 7/7 return. This hypothetical patient is in your care, is the blood supply good enough to use oral antibiotics? will the skin tear with tape? can the patient see what happens on the foot? Almost certainly some degree of tissue necrosis will occur with the flap as the less than adequate blood supply was cut to that tissue. 2/7 is not overkill, neither is a modern dressing or rapid referral on in attempt to save a limb.
Now its getting late and I'm going to vaso dilate with some Bannrock.....hypothetically anyway.
Ros -
why antibiotics with no infection?
dressings depend on type of would and stage in would healing and i still say gause is sufficient for a clean superficial wound were limited bleeding is noted.
It is interesting that we think the ref to vascular will resolve the problem yes it is the correct pathway but lets say in this case the vascular team had seen this lady and the plan is conservative (not blair type) care as the team felt she was to high risk for any form of intervention.
lets say (as was in this case) the patients full vascular history is known by the pod and that along with the rest of the case load he sees is high risk.
she has podiatry needs that include the painful callosities and attends (as she did) each 4 to 6 weeks for podiatry in the NHS.
she has protective orthosis and footwear is good.
she has been having routine pod treatment for many years with no problems.
the outcome for this was at the 1st dressing the small cut in the plantar cal was still open and sore the area had no evidence of infection ( difficult to tell in the ischemic foot)
the pod then dressed using foam after swabbing the area as much as pain would allow.
as the insole offered good protection no padding was needed.
doppler showed monophasic faint sounds which had not changed from the last one.
urgent ref to high risk team made but outcome was inevitable
patient bit ****** but legal case was well defended by trust .
pod shaken but not stirred was more nervous with patient and lost confidence.
this is why not as a "get out" but as a form of patients understanding that podiatry treatments carry risks the leaflet/consent seems a good idea for high risk patients
oh, I am not the pod but was in the high risk team the patient came to -
I'm a bit confused ( not last nights Bannrock), did the patient loose her leg, did the court find that the pod had treated the patient with all reasonable care?
Ros -
hi
the vascular surgical team removed the leg following bi pass graft attempt some time later.
the case was defended by the trust but the final out come for legal matters I don't know if the trust won or settled I would hope the case was defended and won.
as always in this kind of thing there are no winners as the pod suffered the stress of the claim and the knock in his confidence.
the patient lost a leg.
we must take care to inform the patient of the risks and as the comments suggest take care with treatment planning.
It seems podiatry carries serious risks even at the minor routine debridement level and we should always be aware of this.
work safe and inform the patient of all risks seems to be the best we can do
thanks for all the comments -
what's bannrock sounds good!:dizzy:
-
Happy Australia Day! Bannrock Station is a pleasant drop best drunk on a pleasant summers evening in the Barossa Valley. It comes either bottled or in 2 Litre casks but it is the same quality in both unlike some wine in cardboard. Usually cost around $10 a bottle. Since we moved to the Barossa Valley, which is a wine growing region, we have done our level best to help the local economy!
Regards
Ros -
ah
the rain is running off the window and its cold here in the uk (as usual)!
think I will stick to a malt for its warming effect!!
lots of pods I know have been heading to aus maybe I should join them?
all the best
Tony -
Bill Liggins -
Re: malpractice or clinical risk?
Best wishes -
-
hi
the wound size/diameter was .5-1cm with depth been shallow.
Infection was not identified at the swab in 7 days
wound made by sterile scalpel and dressed with sterile gauze type dressing so clean wound if you like.
I can understand the thinking for antibiotics but still fail to see how they were indicated in this case with no clinical infection noted and appropriate dressing.
off loading in a wound shoe (do you mean a darco rocker shoe) as the patient had fitted protective insole in shoes that offered more advanced protection then a standard dressing shoe.
Are we just throwing things at this that are not needed.
the problem is one of (if you like luck) having made the small shallow cut while debriding pathological cal in an ischemic patient the pod done all he could but the small cut failed to heal due to ischemia and the disease process as out comes in ischemic ulcers/wounds tend to be poor the small wound progressed into a very painful necrotic ulcer (iv antibiotics needed when necrosis tissue developed infection. pain required morphine and after a failed attempt at artificial bypass graft the option is limited and amputation was the best outcome.
I can understand the patient's pain and anger and need to blame some one for this.
And again i can see her point that she had had vascular problems for years and had had the cal debrided a number of times in the past with no problems.
i think this is a risk we all take when treating ischemic patients even for routine care and agree completely with all your thinking on follow up dressings etc but in this case i feel the podiatrist done all that he could and the outcome was pure luck of the draw
should the pod have debrided the painful cal ? like you guys said sometimes doing nothing is the best treatment in this patient and i agree but the patient requested the painful cal reduced.
perhaps a consent form would have helped the patient understand the risk.
I learned a lot from this case and a lot from all your comments and love the idea o a leaflet outlying the risk of podiatry treatment.
i also remember the vascular team commenting on how many amputations they have via pods
thanks for the replies good to debate:good: -
Hello
This thread illustrates the necessity of seeing a copy of the full notes. In an earlier posting you stated:
"skin flap made by scalpel during debridement say .5-1. cm shallow." Thus indicating the depth of the wound. You now clarify by stating:
"the wound size/diameter was .5-1cm with depth been shallow." This is inexact but it does at least indicate the wound diameter rather than the depth. Hopefully, this was the case in the notes, since a shallow wound would be more defensible than a deep wound. Even so, the pt. should have been non weight bearing, as mentioned by others, and given the fragility of the patient's PVD - and one may reasonably assume general state of health (although you do not tell us), prophylactic antibiosis would have been advisable. If not, why not? The prosecuting barrister will ask.
Bill Liggins -
...would you not agree that a painful, unhealed cut strongly indicates infection ?
Not necessarily in a patient with PVD, but certainly prophylactic antibiotics are indicated.
I won`t say more as I think I may have dealt with this ! -
the topic is up for comment and i am not writing clinical notes!
look if you did not understand wound size at .5 - 1cm shallow i apologise but we are talking about routine debridement not surgery.
say for example you PX flucloxacillin at 500 mg and put her in some form of off loading better then the FFO she had (and by magic)! this caused vasodilation and prevented the development of necrosis and painful ischemic ulceration you would be right.
but say it made no difference to the outcome except the development of gastrointestinal problems and sickness then i don't see the point
the point is this accident occurred and the outcome was depending on the ability for the patient to heal and this depended on vascular supply
would you have put an antimicrobial on after the "cut" ?
thanks for your comments -
hi bill just a question how would you record a small cut during routine debridement?
-
Whilst it may be true that not all non-healing wounds in an ischaemic foot are infected, best practice would dictate prophylactic ABs in view of the high risk of subsequent infection and further complications in patients with PVD. -
yer
probably wise you dont comment any more:deadhorse: -
No need to become personal.
You have received excellent advice from my learned colleagues. Why raise this ambiguous `hypothetical` scenario on a professional forum, if you don`t wish to hear professional opinions?
Kind regards,
Bel -
patient with pvd has painful cal
pod has full medical notes
pod is aware of vascular problems
pod asked to treat painful cal
pod cuts patient (small cut shallow)
pod applies sterile dressing gauze
patient has protective foot wear and TCJ
pod books patient at 1/52 to check small cut
at 1/52 wound still open and sore
pod swabs would ref to high risk team
patient fails to heal developing painful ischemic ulceration
despite all therapies available on planet earth results in amputation
CLINICAL RIK V MALPRACTICE
vote now!!!! -
I'm sorry if you have not got the reaction that you wanted but you asked for advice and have received it from some very experienced practitioners. Please try not to be rude because if ever you do end up in a court of law you will find that it will act to your extreme detriment. Barristers will probe such weakness.
Bill Liggins
Page 1 of 2
Loading...
- Similar Threads - Malpractice clinical risk
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 3,700
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 574
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 2,455
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 6,195
-
- Replies:
- 5
- Views:
- 7,194
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 4,594
-
- Replies:
- 3
- Views:
- 6,699