The patient sued the nurse anesthetist, the anesthesiologist and the hospital. The nurse anesthetist and the physician settled their cases. But the plaintiff proceeded to trial against the hospital on the theory that the hospital was not following appropriate policies for the supervision and training of nurse-anesthetists. The jury found against the hospital.
The hospital appealed, asserting that its policies regarding nurse-anesthetists met the standard of care. The policy required that nurse anesthetist’s have direct supervision by physicians and that an anesthesiologist evaluate and prepare the patient.
But the plaintiff presented both expert testimony and documents that established that the supervision was not sufficient in this case. Interestingly, a suggestion was made by the hospital that the obstetrician was supervising the nurse anesthetist. However, the obstetrician disagreed, asserting that he was not qualified to do so.
Finally, a memo from the hospital’s Chief of Anesthesiology, expressing concern about the lack of supervision for nurse anesthetists, was used to buttress the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff presented standards promulgated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists which also required that the anesthesiologist direct the administration of anesthesia and participate in anesthesia induction and emergence.
The Appeal’s Court sided with the plaintiff. The court noted that the jury could reasonably find that the guidelines requiring physician supervision had not been complied with. Therefore, the standard of care would not have been met.
During the last 20 years, the way in which health care has been delivered has changed dramatically. One particular change involves the increased use of non-physician professionals for the provision of care, and therefore increased litigation of these professionals.
The use of non-physician professionals requires forethought and planning about their role in the provision of patient care. Guidelines promulgated by state licensing agencies, the Joint Commission, and professional groups need to be considered. Failure to adopt guidelines consistent with these recommendations may be interpreted by juries as a cost saving approach to the detriment of patient care. In Massachusetts advanced practice nursing policies must be developed in compliance with regulations from the Board of Registration in Nursing.
The appeals court found that Denton Regional Medical Center had policies that were not followed in the LaCroix case. So establishing appropriate policies is just a first step; educating staff and developing a process by which compliance with the policies can be assured is then mandatory. In the end these policies will establish the standard by which the hospital will be judged in medical malpractice proceedings.
The content of this page is copyrighted as it is original content produced by the lawyers at Reardon Law Office LLC (formerly Hassan & Reardon P.C.) in Boston. Please contact us if you would like to use any of this material.
Advertising. In accordance with rules established by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. This web site must be labeled "advertising." It is designed to provide general information for clients and friends of the firm and should not be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.
© 2012 Reardon Law Office, LLC. Engaged in the general practice of law with an emphasis on health care and employment. Boston Healthcare Law is a trademark of Reardon Law Office, LLC. One International Place, Boston, MA 02110.
75 2nd Ave, Needham, MA 02494
617-859-3600 Attorneys licensed in Massachusetts (MA) and Rhode Island (RI) Reardon Law Office LLC is a professional corporation in Boston, Massachusetts All materials on this website are the property of Reardon Law Office