Mixed Symptoms, Narrow Focus Contribute to PE Death

Print Case Study

Expand All / Collapse All

Description

A 50-year-old woman died from a pulmonary embolism following a recent visit with her PCP for complaints of shortness of breath and difficulty breathing.

Key Lessons

  • The patient was seen on numerous occasions for the same complaint without any resolution.
  • Continuity of care was complicated by multiple visits to different physicians.
  • The physicians kept a narrow diagnostic focus.

Clinical Sequence

A 50-year-old obese female patient was followed by the same practice for 12 years, beginning in 1992. During this time, the patient, a teacher who spends all day on her feet, was evaluated twice for leg pain and swelling. Ultrasounds both times to rule out DVT were normal.

In November 2003, six years after the last test for leg pain, the patient was seen by a covering physician for sore throat, runny nose, headache, and an ongoing cough of 10 days duration. She was a non-smoker who took oral contraceptives intermittently, and had recently completed a long airplane ride. The physician prescribed amoxicillin; 10 days later, the patient called to report no improvement. The covering physician prescribed another round of amoxicillin and bactrim for her cough. She was asked to come in if the symptoms did not resolve.

The patient did not return until January 9, 2004. She was seen in the office by a covering physician for complaints of cough, fever, chills, and shortness of breath, ongoing for the last few weeks. When evaluated, she had a temperature of 98.2 degrees, pulse 88, respirations 14, and blood pressure 120/80. She was diagnosed with bronchitis and prescribed zithromax, decongestants, steam and robitussin. She was asked to follow up in one week. Later that day the patient called the physician’s office to report that she was experiencing an episode of tachycardia at 120 beat per minute (per the school nurse where she worked). She was advised to start her medications, hydrate, and to get some rest.

On January 12, 2004 the patient returned to the office for follow up on her bronchitis and was seen by her PCP. She reported that her cough had not resolved. In the office, the patient’s respirations were 18 and her oxygen saturation was 88 percent. The patient was given a DuoNeb, which diminished her cough. The patient was also sent for chest X-ray, which was normal. The PCP diagnosed her with bronchitis with an asthmatic component. The patient was to continue with the zithromax, add a Medrol Dosepak, and an albulterol inhaler.

On January 16, 2004, the patient returned to the office with an ongoing complaint of shortness of breath and difficultly breathing. She was seen by her PCP and stated that she has had no improvement from any of her past medications, which included zithromax, guaifed, prednisone, Tessalon, Medrol Dosepak, and albulterol inhaler. During the patient’s workup, her blood pressure was 140/100, pulse 120, temperature 97.8 degrees, respirations 28, pulse oximetry was 96-97 percent on room air and her lungs appeared to be clear. The patient was diagnosed with subjective shortness of breath with probable bronchitis. She was advised to finish the Medrol Dosepak, use her albulterol inhaler prn, and start Advair. The patient was instructed to return to the office for follow up in four or five days.

She died the next day from a pulmonary embolism.

Allegation

The patient’s estate sued her primary care physician and the practice group, alleging negligent delay in diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

Disposition

In the absence of a supportive expert review, the case was settled in the high range ($500,000 – $999,999)

Analysis

Clinical Perspective

  1. The physician never gave up on the initial diagnosis of bronchitis (only expanding it to include a possible asthmatic component). Several visits for the same problem, with no improvement after treatment and worsening vital signs, should call to mind an expanded differential diagnosis. Atypical presentation of a medical condition can contribute to a narrow diagnostic focus and thus to potential liability for failing to timely diagnose a serious condition. It is a time for seeking more information or considering a consult.
  2. The patient had the following positive risk factors for pulmonary embolism: recent air travel, obesity, past problems with leg edema and pain, intermittent use of oral contraceptives and prolonged standing on her feet at her job; however, the patient was a non-smoker, with no prior DVT or surgery, and no family history for DVT or pulmonary emboli. Although a patient’s preexisting risk factors are mixed, applying them to the patient’s presentation should help raise the appropriate red flags for the physician. Being stuck on a predefined idea about what a condition must "look like," can delay or obstruct the correct diagnosis. Malpractice cases often feature patients who did not fit the usual profile for their diagnosis, may not have had textbook symptoms, nor, in some cases, any predisposing factors.

Patient Perspective

  1. The patient believed the providers were not keeping track of all the visits and treatments she had experienced over a short time for the same problem; she had been given Zithromax, Guaifed, Prednisone, Tessalon, a Medrol Dosepak, and an Albulterol inhaler to treat her upper respiratory complaints with no improvement over the course of seven days.Summarizing with the patient all that’s been attempted so far lets the patient know that a provider is focused on the patient’s problem and aware of the complexities. A participatory model of care that involves patients in the diagnosis of their own problems can be helpful when the solutions become less obvious. The clinician can openly share the frustration that patients have when a problem isn’t going away. An equally open discussion of alternative explanations can help the patient see the provider’s concern and diligence.

Risk Management Perspective

  1. The patient’s record lacked a recent updated history and physical, though the chart featured multiple risk factors that could have pointed the physician in the direction of pulmonary embolism. Updating and documenting recent patient history can demonstrate that the care was comprehensive. More critically, the updated history can reveal vital clues—such as a recent long trip on an airplane—needed to properly diagnose the current problem. The patient history is not only a key factor in developing the initial differential diagnosis; returning to it and updating it can yield important information when the patient is not responding to a current treatment and the provider is looking for new directions.
  2. As in any busy office practice, this patient was seen by numerous physicians over time. Patients can be seen for numerous episodic visits by whichever covering physician is currently available. This may ultimately impact an individual physician’s evaluation of symptoms, when he or she is not the one to initially treat the current problems or related previous conditions. Systems and practices should be established to allow multiple physicians working in the same office practice to easily document interactions and keep up to date with their patients who have been seen by colleagues.

Legal Defense Perspective

  1. The defense lacked a supportive expert. In this particular case, the experts who reviewed the medical records all agreed that once the physicians had documented that patient had been on the particular multiple medications with no improvement, they should have expanded their differential diagnosis, and that to continue to prescribe the same medications was not the standard of care.In order to take a suit to trial or arbitration, the defense team usually needs a supportive expert review from a physician in the same field as the physician who is named in the suit

 

Author: Jessica Bradley