Complaints about Doctors

Bernera, please don't misunderstand me. If you are really injured or harmed as a direct result from a medical professional not doing their job then by all means do what you feel you must. I won't sit here and say that I wouldn't do the same in a case like that. But let the punishment fit the crime. Contacting a professional board over stupid stuff isn't the right action to take.

In the case of the doctor that you mentioned, he needed to have his license yanked if the reports are true. I agree with that. But let's back up before all of that. Maybe he could have been sanctioned a lot sooner if the respective board wasn't exhausted wading through all of the other bull crap that doesn't matter, the complaints from the yahoo's who think their bruise or their asthma wasn't treated or acknowledged in the manner in which they felt justified them? Maybe lives could have been saved.

What most of you laymen don't understand is that when you file a complaint with a medical board, no matter what board, or which state, this is how things work. The complaint comes in, it's put on record, then there is an initial meeting with a member of the board, the person in questions and their lawyer if they decide to bring one. Then after that meeting, if all parties decide to take it further then there is a formal hearing, again not with the entire board but with their representative. Then if it needs to go further then there is a formal hearing in front of all members of the board. Now the time from the first meeting to the last will almost always be between 1-2 years. Why you ask? Because they have to wade through all the stupid crap that is on their dockets that doesn't need to be there from yahoo's who file complaints about bruises and what not. I realize that the wheels of justice move slowly, but that's crazy. It wouldn't be this way if they were not bogged down with frivolous bull crap.

Also, I want to make another thing quite clear here, I am using the term "bruise" as a generic term for all of the stupid crap people find to complain about. And for the record, if I was a nurse and I had a doctor that killed my patients I would have hid them too. I also would have been that nurse who would have made it very clear as to why I didn't want him touching my folks. I have lost a job in the past for standing up for my patients best interests from a stupid doctor and I would do it again. That is my job to protect them.

And one last thing, no you were not married to me once. You would know it if you were because I would still have you tied to the bed in my under the bed restraint system with a tube in your fanny, your balls in a vice, and a gag in your mouth. Besides that, I don't divorce men, I just eat them. It's much cheaper that way. Just sayin, lol.

Mashie

Link below from a post around 12 months ago in reference to Bernera's mention of Dr Jayant Patel,which generally for Australians is mostly an isolated case

http://www.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;msg=640401

Mashie,

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

You have written most eloquently every thought that has entered my mind as I have read this thread. Karma for you.

Andie,

Jds, liquidsky, agracier, turknet, quincy,

Karma for your well written thoughts.

Andie

Nik,

Karma for you. I am absolutely thrilled to know you have been discharged from the hospital, that you are back home again. Sending love, healing thoughts and prayers to you continually. Love you tons!

Mashie,

My maternal grandfather always had really good comments. One of his most favorite fits this thread, and the other thread about How Many Strikes against a doctor. The phrase is: "Some people ask and expect change when everything is free". This also applies to the thread about the female GYN who fired her patient, along with many other threads here.

Andie

The U.S. needs tort reform badly. People enter the "legal lottery" and hope they will strike it rich if they file enough complaints. There is now a data base available to physicians that shows if any new patient has ever filed any medical malpractice law suits in the past. We need more of this kind of data to protect medical professionals from predator patients.

Is it fair that retired OB-GYNs have to continue to carry malpractice insurance for 7 years AFTER they are retired?

Actually, pediatricians and OB doctors are liable for injuries to babies until adulthood. The statue of limitations doesn't engage until the baby achieves the age of majority.

Here's the simple way to stop unfounded or frivolous suits:

If the PLAINTIFF LOSES the case, the PLAINTIFF PAYS THE DEFENDANT/doctor.

If the plaintiff/patient has nothing to lose, they will continue to make frivolous suits fishing for money.

The U.S. needs tort reform badly.

If I am not mistaken in Belgium, the amount of a medical claim is limited to officially agreed upon ceilings. The amount of damages paid for a medical mistake is dependent upon the nature of the mistake of course, but the limits are set by committees of members chosen from several representative organizations: Belgian Medical Association, reps from national health insurance organizations, organizations representing patients rights, etc.

And the amounts are not particularly high. Amounts in the millions of euros are unheard of. Usually it comes down to some tens of thousands, maybe into the hundreds of thousands. But no big Las Vegas Jackpot style amounts.

And recently for some civil law cases, the losers have to pay (part of) the winner's legal fees. That also cuts down on the number frivolous cases. Also note though, that legal fees are usually in the range of a few thousand euros at worst, often not even that for people of limited means.

And recently for some civil law cases, the losers have to pay (part of) the winner's legal fees. That also cuts down on the number frivolous cases.

They should have to pay ALL the winner's legal fees AND LOST INCOME.

The loser must be punished.

Well something needs to be done for sure. It's out of control here. There is no reason for our doctors and nurses in this country to have to carry malpractice insurance up into the tens of millions, with our monthly premiums being 2500-5000 dollars. Is it any wonder private practice and non hospital nurses are either quitting or going into hospital work which I personally detest? Grrrrr. Somethings gotta give.

And again, once Obamacare is fully in place this is only going to get worse. The care that we will be able to give will be a lot less because we will have more patients than ever before and everyone will feel they are being neglected. It's just a freaking nightmare that will be here before we know it. Oh goodie.

Mashie

They should have to pay ALL the winner's legal fees AND LOST INCOME. The loser must be punished.

Hmmmm ... just as an aside and as a social comment and observation, what you suggest is a gambler's mentality: win big time or loose big time. This drives things to extremes on both ends and eschews the process of compromise. It also favors the affluent and rich and disadvantages the poor and precarious. As if there isn't enough of that already.

And come to think of it, it also mirrors the 'winner takes all' setup of elections in the US.

If the winner of a lawsuit was inconvenienced, why shouldn't the loser who caused the problem have to pay or be punished?

Because the law is rarely black and white. Your suit may have merit but you might loose on technical issues or by jury verdict. The judge should have latitude in awarding costs.

Mashie -

Marry me! I'll do the dishes (Sexist, I know - but I can't cook so don't have much to bring to the table. Other than a nice ass and some leftover boy scout merit badges...if you need any help with those knots...?)

Karma!

LOL bernera, I will have to admit, this is the first marriage proposal I have received on here. I must say, I'm flattered, touched, and aroused. LOL. Thank you.

Mashie

Because the law is rarely black and white. Your suit may have merit but you might loose on technical issues or by jury verdict. The judge should have latitude in awarding costs.

Which is another aspect that is often totally baffling: why involve juries in (medical) civil law suits? What in the world is their expertise in matters of medical science? Juries are mainly swayed by emotions and feelings and those make for poor judgement criteria when it comes to complicated issues.

Juries are the basis of American justice. I'd ask what a lawyer's medical expertise is - including the judge.

In reality very few malpractice cases ever go to trial. It's usually the practice to have the attorneys go through their machinations. Those that do go to trial are usually those where the doctor is not guilty but the plaintiff won't back down. It still costs money and takes years to work out. Good sleep is difficult until it's taken care of.

Juries are the basis of American justice. I'd ask what a lawyer's medical expertise is - including the judge.

Juries may be the basis, but are they a good choice in such complicated and medically technical civil law suits? Juries are more apt to be swayed by emotions and feelings, by outward appearances and demeanor, than by pure medical facts.

If you question a lawyer or a judge's medical expertise - rightly so - then I'd most emphatically question the average juror's expertise even more so.

Anyway, a good lawyer's role would mainly be to choose the right medical experts to testify.

Which then goes back to the question: why not let a panel of medical experts determine who is at fault or not. As a form of binding mediation. Cheaper and quicker.

Well, I can't believe I am saying this but...........the reason a panel of medical experts do not determine who is at fault or not is because usually, wow I can't believe I am saying this, I'm sorry Doc, but the reason is because whether you are in medical school or you are a doctor, they have and are all members of a "boy's club". Meaning that they will protect and cover each other when and if possible. So the person filing the suit would most likely not get a fair trial.

Mashie

Well, I can't believe I am saying this but...........the reason a panel of medical experts do not determine who is at fault or not is because usually, wow I can't believe I am saying this, I'm sorry Doc, but the reason is because whether you are in medical school or you are a doctor, they have and are all members of a "boy's club". Meaning that they will protect and cover each other when and if possible. So the person filing the suit would most likely not get a fair trial.

Medical experts need not only come from 'the boy's club' as you rightly say. Or in this case a National Medical association. Of course that wouldn't be fair.

But where I live, panels or boards of that kind have members from various social groups or lobbies. They almost always include members from consumer protection groups, representatives from med insurance mutualities (not to be confused with a private insurer in any way at all) - sort of like union reps, and other social groups. The idea is to represent the various social factions and interests that can be involved in a dispute of any kind, in this case a medical dispute. There is also usually some form of government Ministry of Health representative involved as well.

It's a system that is designed to come to a broad consensus on disputes with representatives from various social groups and interests. Not to create winner-take all outcomes.

Agracier, as always you gave me something I had not thought about. You so ROCK! I never considered a panel of medical professionals as being anything other than all doctors. What you said makes perfect sense. Duh, lol.

You know, I'm not being a brown noser or anything but over and over you amaze me with your insightful thoughts and intelligence. Seriously, you have to be one of the smartest people I know here.

Mashie

Agracier, as always you gave me something I had not thought about. You so ROCK! I never considered a panel of medical professionals as being anything other than all doctors. What you said makes perfect sense. Duh, lol.

You know, I'm not being a brown noser or anything but over and over you amaze me with your insightful thoughts and intelligence. Seriously, you have to be one of the smartest people I know here.

Ha ha ha ... that is very sweet of you to say so.

But in all honesty, this is what I learned when studying sociology and all the attendant subjects like labor and social security laws, social history, a bit of 'normal' law and about governmental agencies and all that utterly boring stuff in Belgium. We also got comparisons with the Netherlands and France. Belgium is after all a small country with French based law systems overlaid with a Dutch taste for endless compromising and consulting.

What makes it interesting though is that I grew up in the US and things there were my base line. So there was always the comparing of how things are different and how similar between the US and over here. These things strike me so often.

One of the things Belgium and the Netherlands do well is setting up systems that include representation from opposing social groups with opposing interests, who nevertheless have found it to be advantageous in the long run to come to (long drawn out) compromises that give every party a bit of a victory and make every party partly give in to the others demands. It is boring as can be, but it does prevent social disorder. And everyone saves face and can say they have gained some concessions. And none of the parties need feel completely routed or ignored. It is somewhat like creating a system of equilibrium between opposing interests.

Historically you might say there have always been fears of revolts and rebellions and revolutions by those lowest on the social ladder. They often caused great upheaval and bloodshed. Think 1789, 1830, 1848, 1917, 1933 and so on. There has to be a way to prevent the pot (of social discontent) from boiling over and allowing opposing factions some say in discussions and the creation of legislation and so on, goes a long way to calming everyone and making sure everyone has a stake in the smooth and honest functioning of the state, the courts, disputes and so on and on ...

I am going to wade into these dangerous waters.... Good plaintiff's medical malpractice lawyers won't take a meritless case. It takes too much time, effort and money and a big hit to their reputation before their peers and the judges before whom they appear.

As Mashie wrote, there are docs who will cover for the mistakes of others. And... each state has a standard of what constitutes malpractice which differs from others.

Finally many of those who bring meritless suits would not have the money to pay an award against them like those suggested by some of the posters.

There is no perfect solution.

Disclosure: I have never been involved in a medical malpractice case and once advised my former wife not to file one after a badly botched surgery, when her only claim would have been for "pain and suffering".

or

You know srg rik, I am certified in water rescue. If you wade in too far into the dangerous waters, don't worry, I will save you my friend. Just so you know, lol.

Mashie

On the original question and returning to the points raised in posts 4 to 7, one thing that concerns me is that (at least in the UK) patients' satisfaction levels with GPs appear to be statistically related to the quantity of antibiotics prescribed. It suggests that patients of GPs who prescribe fewer antibiotics are less satisfied than patients of doctors who prescribe them more. I am left wondering just how many GPs are prescribing antibiotics inappropriately just to pacify patients and get rid of them in the short term, reduce scope for complaint, and raise the satisfaction profile for their practice.

In the long term, overprescription of antibiotics is bad for the health of all of us, as is overuse in farming. Surely things must change.

Oh, my friend, welcome to the dangerous waters. We were sued for malpractice once, a number of years ago. The plaintiff shopped the case around, tweaking her story until someone finally took it. The patient got very good care from us, and her injuries were entirely self inflicted. Didn't stop her, or her idiot "heavy hitter" attorney.

Ultimately, when they figured out we were going to clean their clock at trial - to the point of using their expert witness' own textbook to refute his testimony, forcing their expert witness to back out four weeks before our trial date - did they offer to settle. We told them we'll see them in court. One week before trial they withdrew their suit.

Was still two years of hell, and one hell of a lot of money to our defense attorney paid for my my malpractice carrier.

Doc

DrZ, you are exactly correct. People when they go to the doctor expect something tangible when they leave. They expect to get a script, or a shot or whatever. If they don't leave with something or have gotten something while they were there then they think the doctor didn't do anything for them. This started at least from the 1950's if not earlier. But back then it was shots in the butt. Everyone got one whether they needed it or not.

Mashie

People when they go to the doctor expect something tangible when they leave. They expect to get a script, or a shot or whatever. If they don't leave with something or have gotten something while they were there then they think the doctor didn't do anything for them. This started at least from the 1950's if not earlier. But back then it was shots in the butt. Everyone got one whether they needed it or not.

Indeed, Mashie. Some people can be difficult to please - and I'm sure that sometimes there are patients who would be happier to be seen by a snake oil salesman than a doctor, as long as they get medicine of some kind to take. Seriously though, from what you say it sounds as if you have the same problem in the USA as we have in the UK, and I can't say I'm surprised. There will be those who will not accept being simply advised to go home, get some rest and take care of themselves. They expect a miracle cure, and they mistakenly believe antibiotics will give them that.

Here in the UK the problem seems to be getting worse. It appears that 35 million prescriptions for antibiotics are written by British GPs each year, and that is up 30% since 2000. Perhaps more effort needs to be made to educate people that antibiotics are not the 'cure all' that is commonly believed, and that their sore throats and bronchitis are caused by viruses and not bacteria.

Unless things do change, and we stop helping bacteria adapt and acclimatise to antibiotics, we really will be in a post-antibiotic world where even relatively minor surgery could kill you. Unfortunately we seem to be on the brink of it now. 😢

It should be remembered than in a survey in 2012, figures from the General Medical Council (GMC) showed that 35.5% of complaints made against Doctors were made by other doctors, other healthcare staff, and other people in authority such as police officers, coroners and medical directors a point which has not been made so far in this thread. So its not just the layperson or patients that do make complaints against doctors.

According to the GMC report, The state of medical education and practice in the UK 2012, doctors were struck off last year in cases that included substandard treatment, financial deception, false and misleading reporting, incomplete medical records and failure to co-operate with an investigation and fraud. So as you can see complaints are not always of a patient centered or related inquiry.

When Specifically related to doctors grievances were mostly about treatment plans and investigation skills, but the number of allegations about doctors’ communication skills have risen by 69% in the last year and complaints about lack of respect by 45%.

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, which oversees doctors practising in the UK, stressed that “More complaints does not necessarily mean worse care,” he added. “Indeed the evidence is actually about rising levels of satisfaction with medical care across the country.”

“Patient expectations are changing and they are more willing to complain. Allied to this is the digital age in which more information is available for patients. In some cases, it may mean that local systems of complaints are not working so people are coming to us to complain when they could be dealt with at local level.”

It should be noted that a Department of Health spokesperson said: "Every complaint holds valuable information on how patients feel about their care - complaints can be the earliest symptom of a problem within an organisation and the NHS should use them to learn from and improve their service.". So complaining should not always regarded as being negative or hold negative connotations.

While I have never made a formal complaint about a Doctor in either my professional or personal life , I would have no hesitation in doing so should I feel that their practice was dangerous or they were incompetent . As a Nurse my Code of Professional Conduct states that I have to Act in the best interests of people at all times (Clause 4), Be open and candid with all service users about all aspects of care and treatment, including when any mistakes or harm have taken place (Clause 14), Act without delay if you believe that there is a risk to patient safety or public protection ( Clause16). I have however in my professional life discussed with my senior consultants about the practice of some of their junior doctors on several occasions during my carer when I felt that their practices were unsafe or potentially unsafe , and well continue to do so in the future without any hesitation ( I don't see this as anything personal, the life and wellbeing of my patient will always take precedence ).

I did help a friend make draft and submit a complaint against a GP that was upheld, my friend suffered months of debilitating illness from this doctors incompetence , but its very little comfort for her after months and months of ill health, pain , discomfort etc.. Thankfully she recovered fully.

With regards to the antibiotics Doctors and patients need to take responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves at present. Doctors for their irresponsibility for overperscrbing of antibiotics for cases where it was not totally necessary or would not offer any benefits . Patients as has been stated already do have this expectation of being prescribed antibiotics for relatively minor infections couple with the fact that they don't finish the entire prescribed course leading to the potential of the bacteria coming resistance to that particular antibiotic. In addition to the danger that the infection will recur, and will be more difficult to treat when it does.

We are already at present seeing an increases year on year in resistance to antibiotics , these so called "Superbugs" like Klebsiella pneumoniae, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile ( CDiff), Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, Drug-resistant Gonorrhea , Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcal (VRE), Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC).

As DrZ has said :

Unless things do change, and we stop helping bacteria adapt and acclimatise to antibiotics, we really will be in a post-antibiotic world where even relatively minor surgery could kill you. Unfortunately we seem to be on the brink of it now.

We are well and truly on the brink at present.

With regards to the antibiotics Doctors and patients need to take responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves at present. Doctors for their irresponsibility for overperscrbing of antibiotics for cases where it was not totally necessary or would not offer any benefits . Patients as has been stated already do have this expectation of being prescribed antibiotics for relatively minor infections couple with the fact that they don't finish the entire prescribed course leading to the potential of the bacteria coming resistance to that particular antibiotic. In addition to the danger that the infection will recur, and will be more difficult to treat when it does.

We are already at present seeing an increases year on year in resistance to antibiotics , these so called "Superbugs" like Klebsiella pneumoniae, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile ( CDiff), Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, Drug-resistant Gonorrhea , Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcal (VRE), Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC).

Well said, RN. I had meant to make the point about courses of antibiotics not being completed, but somehow I neglected to include it in my post. It can do no good at all if people give bacteria little sips of antibiotics and allow them to build up a tolerance. Sadly it seems this message is hardly ever sent out, so many patients will believe that completing the course will not really matter.