Case Studies

Wrong Site, Quickly Settled

Print Case Study

Expand All / Collapse All

Description

Due to a flipped X-ray, a 38-year-old woman underwent a wrong-site back incision and hemilaminotomy in preparation for a diskectomy, with resulting left side leg and back pain.

Key Lessons

  • Hospital protocols must incorporate failsafe measures to ensure proper X-ray orientation.
  • Supervision of surgical residents should involve skill assessments and communication plans.
  • Training in team dynamics, communication skills, and interpersonal behaviors may interrupt a sequence of errors before a patient is harmed.
  • Wrong-site surgery suggests a systemic failure that requires clinical and hospital administrator efforts to repair.
  • Patients can lose trust when a provider does not indicate empathy and responsiveness to concerns.

Clinical Sequence

A 38-year-old female with a long history of episodic low back pain presented to her primary care physician with a recent history of severe right lower back pain, with some radiation into the right leg and numbness along the lateral aspect of her right thigh and calf. An MRI showed degenerative disk disease, a mild concentric disk bulge at L4-5, and a moderate size right paracentral disk herniation. The PCP referred her to a neurosurgeon who recommended a right L5-S1 microdiskectomy. In his preoperative note, the neurosurgeon noted that the patient had a long history of right lower extremity radiculopathy refractory to conservative measures.

On the day of surgery, the patient was placed under general anesthesia in the operating room before a needle marker was inserted into her vertebrae. The attending was present with his junior and senior resident, and explained to them how the procedure should evolve. Unbeknownst to the team, the X-rays had been put up backwards. The junior resident made a left midline incision over the spine. Perceiving that it would take 20 minutes before they would expose the vertebral body, the attending surgeon left the operating room and went back to his office. Soon after he left, the senior resident was called away for an emergency.

The junior resident proceeded without the attending surgeon and carried down the incision to the interspace of L5-S1 where a left hemilaminotomy was done. When the attending neurosurgeon returned to the operating room, he immediately discovered 1) his senior resident had been called away, 2) his junior resident was involved in separating and clearing the muscle and tissue from the spinal column, and 3) the resident was operating on the wrong side. The attending and junior resident closed the area on the left that had been incised, and the resident proceeded to do a similar pass down the right side of the interspace. The neurosurgeon removed the ruptured disk without any difficulty.

Immediately following surgery, the patient began to complain of new symptoms involving her left side. In the recovery room the surgeon informed the patient that they had separated tissue and muscle from the left side as well as the right. She asked if her new left-side symptoms were related to the operation, and the surgeon downplayed the possibility, saying the incision was minimal. After discharge, the patient called her surgeon’s office twice because of pain. Without speaking with her directly, he recommended she restrict her activities, and he prescribed anti-inflammatories. The patient did not return for her follow-up appointment. Her subsequent course involved multiple hospital visits for severe left leg pain that was new since the surgery.

Allegation

The patient requested compensation, asserting that the attending neurosurgeon, the senior resident, and the junior resident performed the surgery improperly, including a left hemilaminotomy without the patient’s consent.

Disposition

A letter to the hospital from the patient’s attorney led to a settlement in the low range without the filing of a lawsuit.

Analysis

Clinical Perspective

  1. The X-ray was flipped, resulting in an unnecessary left hemilaminotomy.
    Operations on the wrong side of the right patient should never happen. JCAHO surgical site verification procedures (i.e., pre-procedure pause) may provide some guidance to focus interventions. An X-ray flip is an obvious human error and, although the effectiveness of preoperative verification protocols has generated some recent debate, hospitals must standardize processes to ensure that an X-ray belongs to the patient and is properly oriented.

  2. Shortcomings in resident supervision and team communication set the stage for the wrong-side outcome.
    The attending is responsible for providing care and supervising care by residents. Trainees are expected to communicate information to more senior members of the team in a timely and complete fashion. Physicians in training residents may be prone to errors of overconfidence, failure to recognize their limitations, or reluctance to ask for help due to an expectation of competency. Team training and communication methods can facilitate appropriate supervision and performance. Senior residents can be instructed to alert the attending when called away from a case involving trainees. Huddles before a procedure can verify the site and the strategy; team training can encourage members to cross-check each other’s work and junior members to ask for appropriate assistance.

Patient Perspective

  1. The patient had more surgery than what was originally indicated for her type of problem, and was frustrated by feelings that her concerns were disregarded.
    After an adverse event, patients often experience fear, which can be based on the unknown, and also on the very practical—needing more help at home, worrying about being able to manage financially due to the unexpected disability, etc. Providers can help surface these types of concerns by acknowledging potential fears even before they are expressed. By addressing a patient or family member’s questions and clinical worries directly without downplaying them, a physician may avoid the hard feelings that develop when a patient feels ignored.


  2. Communication breakdown led to mistrust. The patient felt that her surgeon lacked proper bedside manner –not being sufficiently compassionate and communicative about what happened in the operating room, and ignoring her complaint of left-sided symptoms in the postoperative period. As a result, she did not return for her postoperative visit and sought counsel of other providers.
    Breakdowns in communication between physician and patient fuel distrust. Acting as though nothing happened after something goes wrong will raise suspicions. Without expressions of empathy, the patient may lack assurance that the physician cares about her well-being. Showing concern and asking questions about the level of a patient’s pain is productive for patient care and to assuage anger after an error. Patients who do not adhere to postoperative plans and miss appointments may be harboring feelings of mistrust that can be explored.

Risk Management Perspective

  1. Physicians should seek help from their institutional risk manager or others skilled in disclosure, before discussing an error with a patient.
    Research has shown that patients need certain types of information and assurances after suffering a medical error. Communication skills training around disclosure may be available at the hospital, and “real-time” training and assistance with language to properly express regret, etc. is increasingly used.

  2. The medical record contains no documentation about a conversation between the surgeon and the patient about the medical error.
    It is appropriate to write a note about discussions with a patient about an adverse outcome. A record that has no reference to such a conversation may leave the impression that the providers had not taken the situation seriously.

Legal Defense Perspective

  1. Experts were unable to support the care provided by the neurosurgeon. Due to the lack of documentation in the operative note, assessing damages was somewhat difficult.
    There is very little room for argument when a procedure is done on the wrong side. Typically the best defense strategy is to attempt to settle a case before a lawsuit is filed. Contemporaneous documentation of events after a surgical mishap can help determine whether post-op symptoms such as pain are the result of the error or due to the patient’s pre-existing physiology, and guide the settlement process. Close cooperation between the clinician, hospital, and professional liability insurer maximizes the potential for a satisfactory resolution.

Written by Kathleen Dwyer, CRICO/RMF (2006)