Beth Pyliotis shares her compelling story of how her breast cancer was diagnosed and treated. Despite a rocky start when a temporary NP covering for the PCP did not recommend testing and the patient insisted, the subsequent care was excellent and comprehensive once the PCP returned. See how this patient heard an apology, and now has nothing but praise for the coordination and compassion of her primary care at Atrius Health and treatment at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
These episodes can help you promote patient safety in your organization.See all episodes
About the Series
We’ve got you.
Our Safety Net podcast features clinical and patient safety leaders from Harvard and around the world, bringing you the knowledge you need for safer patient care.
Recent episodes from the Safety Net series.
Response to Charges of Discrimination can Help or Hurt a Hospital, Any Employer
When hospitals and medical practices face charges of discrimination from employees, the consequences can include litigation, large payments, morale problems, and less quality care for the patients they serve. How an employer responds can make all the difference in outcomes. Based on closed claims in the Harvard medical system, two cases illustrate that point. We interview Megan Kures, of Hamel, Marcin, Dunn, Reardon and Shea, who offers some principles to follow.
Health Payment Reform Act: Rules to Protect Providers
After a state medical error disclosure and apology law went into effect in November 2012, health providers in Massachusetts have protections and rules to follow.
Overdose or Poor Documentation?
The patient’s family alleged that improper management of the patient under anesthesia resulted in cardiorespiratory arrest, permanent brain damage, and a persistent vegetative state. While the cause of the patient’s cardiac arrest is uncertain, the CRNA failed to note which medications and doses were administered during the procedure, and the case was settled for more than $1 million.
Slow to Diagnose Endocarditis After Repeat Visits
One thing that seemed to be missing in this particular evaluation was a formal differential diagnosis that may have been present in the physician’s brain, but wasn’t documented, and there’s no evidence that it was really thought about.
Cookies help us improve your website experience.