Page 27 - 2022 Risk Basics - Surgical Practice

SVMIC Risk Basics: Surgical Practice

all testified that the surgeon screamed at them in prior

cases, intimidated them, and established a hostile
environment not conducive to communication, and you

have a case that adds a “mad factor” for any jury with the

possibility of a very high jury verdict against all of the
defendants. Conflicting testimony by the co-defendants

and the likelihood of finger-pointing is always problematic
in the defense of a case and tends to drive up the value.

The simple act of conveying a concern or seeking clarity of a

condition could have changed the outcome. The failure to do

so resulted in significant liability among the defendants and a
life changing injury to the patient. The surgeon’s “no talking”

policy and fear-inducing conduct, as well as the facility

administration’s failure to notice or correct the negative
behavior, created a hostile environment that resulted in an

adverse outcome and defensibility hurdles that were
impossible to overcome.

Additional examples of physician/staff communication failures

include bedside nursing failures to inform the surgeon of
changes in the patient’s condition and verbal orders that are

not repeated back to the physician.

Communicating with Other Providers

Also observed in SVMIC cases reviewed were inadequate

communication of handoffs between treating physicians,

which accounted for 20 percent of paid claims in which
communication issues were found. The primary scenarios are:

Page | 27