> It raises at least three questions worthy of extensive public debate.
The writer lists those 3 questions as
> (1) Who authorized Fairview hospitalists to deny admission to patients they haven’t examined?
> (2) Since when is diabetes a reasonable explanation of fever, chills and an elevated white-blood-cell count?
> (3) What role did financial incentives and micromanagement of doctors play in inducing Drs. Dinter and Baldwin to make such a serious error?
A more interesting question would be "does suing doctors prevent medical error or negligence?" The answer is probably no. Here's a rough guide of what should happen in England (although it often doesn't happen like this). https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/just-culture-guide/
That guide includes questions like "was there intent to cause harm?", "were there protocols in place?", "were those protocols followed?"
> After hearing Simon’s summary of Warren’s symptoms, Dr. Dinter declared her symptoms were due to “a diabetes that’s out of control” [...] Rather than challenge Dinter’s flaky diagnosis, Simon asked him again to admit Warren. Dinter replied, “To what end?” (pp. 4-5) Simon got the message: Dinter had made up his mind he would not admit this patient, and he was not interested in further discussion.
An important set of questions to ask are:
1) Could it be sepsis?
2) Why isn't it sepsis?
3) What things make it this other dx and not sepsis?
There a bunch of information about how people perceived as lower status (nurses v doctors in this case) can challenge the other person in a way that causes a change in behaviour, rather than just a stubborn "digging the heels in response".
Nurses play a crucial role in speaking up for patient safety.
Probe: "I don't understand why ...?"
Alert: "I am concerned that ..."
Challenge: "This risks harm because ..."
Emergency: "Stop. We need to get advice before we continue."
Sadly, it looks like this nurse did try to challenge and was let down by other doctors.