thx ellencee

thx for the valuable info.
on dec 4...they found protein in his urine to be > 300mg
with the ct of his abdomen, they only report a large spherical calculus. of the surgical abdomen, they found an ileus involving small bowl loops. of abd / pelvis, the gallbladder is contracted and contains at least 1 stone. they note that the ileus involving small bowel loops is mild. the axial scans of the pelvis show mild inflammatory changes adjacent to the sigmoid colon. the surgeon wanted to admit him secondary to probable acute cholecystitus, but he refused. he stated he would come back 2morrow for admission or back to the er if symptoms got worse.
he returned on dec.5 around 1300 hrs for admission to the hospital.on that very day,12/5 they did a gb ultrasound. no evidence of gallstone on this study. "EHIDA"scan might be considered for further evaluation.
on 12/6, a repeat gb ultrasound is performed. on this exam, there is a small amount of fluid surrounding the gb.possibility of pericholecystic fluid from acute cholecystitis is raised.no evidence of gallstones.possibility of pt recently passing a gallstone is raised.common bile duct is not dilated. EHIDA is performed over an hour later. images over the right upper quadrant were obtained. the small bowel is visualized on the 10 min film. gb is visualized on 25 min film. there is no evidence for cystic duct or common duct obstruction. there is also no evidence for cholecystitis. Given gentamycin 300mg q day, etc.
discharged on 12/7, with instructions for tylenol for pain,call surgeon if abdominal pain returns...make appt to see him in 1 week. (dont believe he followed up with him in 1 week, but unsure of this).
in my previous post, i stated that family found him in bed on 12/30, incontinent of both bowel and bladder.he refused to come to er.they returned the next day, 12/31 and he willing went to the er...his chief complaint was that he thought he had pneumonia. upon his exam, bs+ x 4. but had had 1 loose stool, black in appearance.
they never obtained another ct scan of abd/ pelvis because of ct malfunction. with this info, do u still think that they are liable?

hit wrong tab, didnt mean to start new thread. (chit) now if any1 else reads, they might not understand unless they read previous post

[ellencee]

BabyLove_8
the only thing I see in this information is the ct for the gallbladder that states that the small bowel was visualized. Someone would have to look at the film and see if an obstruction was apparent on the film.

protein in the urine could be nothing, or could be indicative of renal (kidney) failure.

I'm not understanding when the ct that shows the ileus was done. will you give the date of the film and the date the radiologist read the film, please?

when he was admitted in serious distress on 12/31, if no x-rays were done simply because the CT equipment was not working, I believe there is a liability. As I told you before, a very simple x-ray of the abdomen would have showed an obstruction, especially of this magnitude. In addition, his previous films were available for their review and an ileus was present on the previous films, which were from the 4th or from his admission 5th-7th.

A very simple blood test, a CBC (complete blood count) would have revealed the seriousness of the infection process.

Look at it this way, if the mayor of his town or the governor of the state had showed up at the hospital in his condition, would they have said they couldn't exam his abdomen because the CT scanner wasn't working? I think not. If they had to open up the abdomen to take a look because no x-ray equipment was working--that's what they would have done, or they would have sent the person to a facility that had the ability to perform an x-ray or a CT scan.

He was in serious condition when he was admitted the last time. If properly and promptly treated, his recovery would have been slow and possibly difficult. However, I have worked with patients in surgical ICU that recovered from conditions as serious, if not almost identical, to his.

In my opinion, the only chances he had to recover were during those days after his admission on 12/31, when no one did a darn thing for him as far as diagnosing and treating goes. Yes, he was in ICU, and yes, the doctor came and stood and scratched his head, but no one did an exploratory laproscopy. They just waited on the CT scanner to be functional and let this man's body destroy itself.

I am, of course, basing my opinion on what you have told me and not on the records as I do not have them.

I'd like for you to tell me what tests were done on 12/31, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and please include the results.

It may be more appropriate for you to email me as this is a legal site and not a medical site. I am hoping that since you are trying to determine if this is a legal matter, that we are not misusing this forum.