it is likely a rare condition that the doctors missed. this case is sad but being fixated on one diagnosis and building the case around that is just trying to pin blame.
"When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras."
-- Anon. (saying in medicine)
The article notes that the ER, at that stage of the visit, is not tasked with a diagnosis but deciding whether to admit to the hospital or discharge.
The complaint is that, sepsis or not, horse or zebra, the symptoms presented were severe enough to warrant further tests (such as a chest x-ray, if for no reason other than to rule something out) as part of a hospital admission. Those tests might also have been inconclusive, and the patient might still have died, but it would have at least reflected the severity of what was presented.
Instead, in a chaos of paperwork and a supervising physician who overruled every warning flag in favor of discharging the patient, the kid got sent back to die alone in his dorm room.
The er was crowded and the hospital was crowded. The er clearly couldn’t treat her beyond basics, she needed to be admitted and monitored. But, as a sympathetic resident told me before mysteriously disappearing “there’s no space upstairs, I’ll try to get your mom in somehow”.
I worked with EHRs at the time and knew how to advocate. They kept trying to discharge my deeply ill mom without explanation and bumping into my objections, I was talking to a different nurse or social worker or resident every 3 hours round the clock. I felt scared to leave even for a short time lest they expel her.
In the end, I needed to go home to sleep and they discharged her at 6am, and when I arrived they had her bundled up and already waiting to be taken home, shivering and ashen. All they told me was that there’s no diagnosis, no reason to admit her and no beds anyway, she just needs to rest and have fluids, try urgent care if needed.
Multiple social workers sympathetically assured me and my mom’s aide that we were good people for being up to taking care of my mom at home, so they could tick a discharge box. We emphatically were not.
In the end, eventually, she was ok. The experience was harrowing. Many people talked to me but no one engaged with us, the interest was clearly in getting my mom out. It felt cruel and uncaring.
I’m surprised the article doesn’t address the “refusal to admit” angle. It used to be that you could admit patients for care and monitoring without a diagnosis, but this simply isn’t a thing anymore. So, deeply ill people who for whatever reason don’t have access to adequate care and monitoring from a caretaker at home are simply surrendered to their fate.
Also many families try to push elderly to hospital for few days.
And rightly so. As people age and their health deteriorates, often a few day's monitoring and nursing care can forestall downward spirals, or catch sudden downturns so family can react appropriately, instead of the usual sudden crises and desperate scrambles. This is nursing, and hospitals used to do it, which I think is what your comment implies. But these days, without the right golden-key "diagnosis", nothing happens, and those diagnoses are certainly deployed "strategically".
There's no other accessible institution that really provides this kind of care, thus dumping responsibility on the beleaguered "community", as the social workers call it. If you happen to have insufficient wealth and willing empowered family to take care of this, I strongly suggest not getting sick. Or old.
Are there no other ER options in your area?
Closest ER to work, to home, and maybe to any place you spend a decent amount of time at.
not saying the hospital is faultless because they clearly failed in this case but as in any courtroom if you charge a criminal with the wrong crime you are bound to lose.
And as much as we would like to believe otherwise, the modern healthcare system is riddled with problems that no technology or checklists will fix. It doesn't take someone's death to verify this- just go read your own charts and discharge papers. Even for something relatively routine there are bound to be inaccuracies. Doctors know this, which is why they spend so much time doing handoffs and interviewing patients.
We pretend that the medical 'record' is infallible, helping to reduce the mental load on doctors while protecting them from liability. But as this case shows, the 'record' is both inaccurate and not useful in showing fault. It's a paper tiger. I'm not saying we should scrap the whole system, but I do think it needs to be examined in a data-driven manner.
Some executive(s) have been told that detailed medical records are the solution to so many problems in modern medicine. But they lack either the guts or the expertise to make sure that these systems are actually accomplishing what they set out to do.
Of course. The records are known to not be 100% accurate. Any conclusion you derive from them will be faulty.
>There is no professional or legal liability if the records are wrong.
Again, of course. In many cases it may not even be possible to show a record is incorrect. For example, if the record doesn't say a test was performed, but the patient insists that it was, is the record wrong, or is the patient mistaken? Or a doctor could incorrectly write down something that only he saw, such as a blood pressure value on a gauge.
I would guess a key obstacle to eliminating all these inaccuracies is that doctors don't see strict record-keeping as actually useful in helping patients. Every minute that they're taking notes of dubious future utility is a minute they could spend seeing a patient.
I'm sure there's many doctors who would like to take better notes if they were allowed the time to do so.
Maybe the case for better records reducing costs to insurance by assisting in prevention / early intervention is a path forward?
The trick I vividly remember was just Penn standing behind a table, putting a piece of green cloth (like a surgical thing) over a water balloon, and then giving a long speech of all the damage that friends of his had survived, as he stabbed the balloon (under the cloth) repeatedly in time with his speech, and talked about the wonder of medical science, and how doctors he knew had saved people from all these horrendous accidents and damaging the balloon in sync with every example.
And then he removed his hands from the table, holding them up to the audience, leaving the balloon still under the surgical barrier, and said "And the other thing that doctors will tell you, if get a couple of beers into them, is that sometimes people just die for no reason at all." And the balloon collapsed right on cue.
I can't seem to find a video of it but I remember it clearly.