Posts Tagged ‘Doctors’

What doctors and hospitals Don’t Want You To Know…

Zija the Healthiest Drink Available on the market today! It contains the Moringa Oleifera Leaf which has 90 Vitamins & Minerals + a Daily Detoxifier. Create New Cells Rapidly – Fight Illness & Any Disease!! With the microelements found in the Moringa Leaf it will help as an Anti-aging method. Visit www.myspace.com/TheHealthyNut for you 30-day Supply!

N.L. doctors ratify new four-year contract

N.L. doctors ratify new four-year contract
Doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador have ratified a new four-year contract with the province that calls for almost $88 million in raises.

Read more on CTV.ca

Doctors brace for possible big Medicare pay cuts

Doctors brace for possible big Medicare pay cuts
Breast cancer surgeon Kathryn Wagner has posted a warning in her waiting room about a different sort of risk to patients’ health: She’ll stop taking new Medicare cases if Congress allows looming cuts in doctors’…

Read more on FOX 12 Idaho

Doctors divided on using body fat for breast implants

Doctors divided on using body fat for breast implants
NEW ORLEANS — Transferring fat from one area to another has been done for years, to plump up sunken in faces and lips and hands thinned by sun, or to round out a flat buttocks. But transferring fat to the breasts rather than using implants has been controversial. But doctors are getting closer. It was over two years ago when we first brought up the issue. Could women safely do liposuction on …

Read more on WWL-TV, Channel 4 New Orleans

Pharma-paid doctors often have spotty records

Pharma-paid doctors often have spotty records
An investigation uncovered hundreds of doctors on company payrolls who had been accused of professional misconduct, were disciplined by state boards, or lacked credentials as researchers or specialists.

Read more on The Charlotte Observer

New Imaging Clinic to Help Doctors Identify Diseases at the Molecular Level

New Imaging Clinic to Help Doctors Identify Diseases at the Molecular Level
STANFORD, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinic opening this month at Stanford Hospital will help advance a new generation of diagnostic techniques for earlier detection and improved management of cancer, heart disease and neurological disorders. The $25 million clinic is outfitted with the latest equipment, including two new PET/CT scanners and a new cardiac …

Read more on Business Wire

12 Million Jury Award For Patient When Doctors Misdiagnosed Her Breast Cancer

The mammogram is a primary tool available to physicians to find a female patient’s breast cancer while it is still in the early stages, thus saving the lives of these patients. Still, the mammogram is only as reliable as the physician who interprets it. If the doctor misreads the mammogram the cancer can be undiagnosed until a later mammogram or such time as a lump is noticed by a breast examination. In the course of this time, the cancer may become advanced. By getting to a late stage, the woman has a diminished five year survival rate. Consequently the probability of her dying of the cancer go up considerably.

Look into the reported matter of a woman who went in for a routine mammogram and was told that there was no sign of cancer. Around two years after, the woman underwent another mammogram. This mammogram was read as showing no change to the dilated duct from the earlier mammogram. However, the previous mammogram had not revealed a dilated duct and so the physicians did nothing to study the suspicious change from the previous, clean, mammogram. Her mammogram was misinterpreted and her cancer was not detected. When the patient went in for another mammogram at a different hospital the following year, the physician who read the mammogram described several small nodular densities. The physician noted that these remained unchanged from the prior mammograms. However, neither of the previous mammograms had included any nodular densities. Once again, her mammogram was misread and again her cancer was not diagnosed.

When the patient was at last diagnosed at a future date, she had stage 4 breast cancer that had metastasized. It was also discovered that the spot that had earlier been described as a dilated duct was location of the primary tumor. She filed a medical malpractice case against both physicians and hospitals.

The doctor and hospital that read the third mammogram as revealing small nodular densities reached a settlement for an undisclosed sum in an amount less that the $2.0 million available in insurance coverage. The doctor and hospital that incorrectly interpreted the prior mammogram refused to settle for the full amount of the policy, offering only $125,000. The case went to trial where evidence was presented that had the mammogram not been misread the cancer could have been detected while still a Stage 1 cancer, which generally has a 5 year survival rate well above 90%. The law firm that handled the lawsuit reported that the jury came back with a verdict of $12,000,000.

This case illustrates several important points. First, 2 separate mammograms were incorrectly interpreted by two different physicians at two distinct hospitals. And both doctors attributed findings to prior mammograms which were not found in those earlier mammograms. It is tough to figure out how this might have occurred unless the physicians each looked at a different patient’s mammogram as the comparison. However the chances of this occurring twice at 2 hospitals is highly unlikely. But the level of negligence that would be needed otherwise is genuinely unexcusable. The jury appears to have agreed.

Breast Cancer Patient: “I Had a Group of Doctors Working to Save My Life.” – Teresa’s Story

www.uchospitals.edu In this video, Teressa McKinney shares her experiences as a Breast Center patient. She speaks about the patient-centered care and team approach that helped her through her bout with breast cancer. Dr. Nora Jaskowiak performed Teresa’s lumpectomy. She expresses her appreciation for the compassion and caring shown by the clinical staff. She would recommend the University of Chicago Medical Center to anyone seeking treatment for breast cancer.

Even With High PSA Levels Man’s Doctors Fail To Diagnose His Prostate Cancer

Doctors use diagnostics tests to doctors to determine if a patient has the cancer. Still because of the possibility of false negatives (a negative test outcome even though the patient in reality has cancer) physicians have to follow up and redo tests as appropriate when patient complaints and screening tests continue to indicate the possibility of cancer. The failure to do so might leave the doctor liable for malpractice.

In one published case a man told his primary care physician that he was having urinary frequency and burning. The doctor commenced him on antibiotics and refered the man to a urologist. The urologist did a cystoscopy which showed that the individual had an enlarged prostate. The urologist also took a PSA blood test which registered a 16.3 (anything higher than a 4.0 is ordinarily accepted as high). As a result the urologist took a biopsy two months later. The biopsy was read by a pathologist as benign.

The next year the individual went back to the urologist. On this occasion the PSA registered a 2.9 (typically considered to be normal). The urologist diagnosed the patient with BPH (a benign enlargement of the prostate). After 3 months the individual went to the primary care physician with complaints of fever and nocturia (having to urinate during the night). The physician put him on a second round of antibiotics. A follow up urine culture registered negative. The primary care physician thus referred the patient to the urologist. The urologist ordered a PSA test which registered a 6.4 ( high).

A biopsy examines parts of the prostate. As a result, a biopsy can miss the cancer. But, the urologist chose to depend on the preceding year’s biopsy and to not perform an additional one as a follow up. Instead, the urologist did nothing to follow up on the man’s complaints and abnormal PSA. The following year the individual returned to his primary care physician. His symptoms continued to include nocturia. On physical examination the physician documented that the patient had a very enlarged prostate. Yet, the doctor did not do another a PSA or re-refer him to a urologist. Regular blood testing 4 months afterwards revealed that the male patient’s PSA was at 7.4 Neither physician did anything to follow up.

The next year the primary care physician noted that the PSA level was 9.8 Again, no follow up or referral to a urologist. Yet one more year and the man continues to have problems with nocturia. Now the PSA was 9.7 No follow up and no referral. Five years after the person’s initial claims of urinary problems the primary care physician once more documented a substantially enlarged prostate gland and a PSA level that had reached a 31. The doctor lastly refered the individual back to the urologist.

The urologist confirmed that the patient’s prostate was enlarged and started the man a two week regimen of antibiotics to be followed by another PSA test. When the PSA test was repeated 2 weeks soon after it registered a level of 33. A biopsy followed which uncovered cancer every sample taken.

Testing later found that the man had prostate cancer which had spread to the lymph nodes, the liver and the bone. Even after hormone therapy and radiation therapy the patient died close to 18 months subsequent to his diagnosis. The law firm that represented his family announced that a settlement for $1,000,000 was attained in the case.

When Doctors Do Not Follow Up After PSA Results Signal The Chance Of Prostate Cancer

Male patients frequently possess a poor knowledge of prostate cancer, their own chances for the cancer, and how to determine whether they have prostate cancer. Many men have little, if any, knowledge of the advantage of screening for prostate cancer or of the guidelines for when to start screening, how frequently to screen, and the meaning of screening test results. They put their confidence in their physician to do whatever is appropriate to detect any cancer early and cure them.

Delayed diagnosis of prostate cancer incidents are all too common. One typical medical mistake that is at the root of these cases arises when the male patient’s primary care physician (1) actually screens the individual for prostate cancer by tracking the amount of PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) in his system, (2) finds abnormally high levels of PSA and but (3) does not inform the patient, does not refer the patient to a specialist, and fails to get a biopsy to confirm whether the elevated PSA is a result of prostate cancer. The lawsuit below illustrates this situation.

A physician, an internist, discovered that his male patient had a PSA of 8. (anything above a 4.0 is normally viewed as high). The physician did not inform the patient. The physician did not refer the patient to a urologist. The doctor did not order a biopsy. Two years later the doctor repeated the PSA test. This time it had gone up to 13.6. Again, the doctor said nothing to the patient. Again, the doctor did not refer the patient to a urologist. And again, the physician did not order a biopsy. Two years later the doctor repeated the PSA test. It was not until three years after first finding out about the patient’s elevated PSA level that the physician at last advised him that he probably had cancer. Further testing showed that at this point he had metastatic prostate cancer. A prostatectomy was no longer an option. Treating physicians alternatively recommended radiation therapy and hormone therapy. Neither of these would cure the cancer but they might impede the cancer’s advancement and further spread. The law firm handling this matter reported that the case proceeded to mediation and settled in the amount of $600,000.

But not following up after observing abnormal test results brings about a situation in which those patients who do actually have prostate cancer might not find out they have it until it has spread outside the prostate, decreasing the patient’s choices for treatment, and substantially reducing the chances that the patient will be able to survive the cancer.

As the above claim illustrates physicians sometimes comply with the guidelines by performing screening for prostate cancer yet when the test results are abnormal they fail to do anything about it.