Baby bit by ants in NICU develops infection & dies

[captgriggs]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MS

Any advice about this is greatly appreciated. To start, my wife was forced to deliver our triplets early @ 22 1/2 weeks. We were constantly told that with today’s technology these situations have good chances. We understood the risks involved but, there was nothing to decide, they were coming anyway. My 1st child passed within 24 hours which was expected because he greatly underweight. The other two actually stood a good chance.

He was making great progress and seemed to stabilize as much as could be expected. We got a call a Thursday evening and were told that ants have got in to his incubator/bed and had bitten him several times but, he seems to be alright. Within 24 hours we received another call requesting us to come to the hospital because, he was fading fast and wasn't expected to make it through the next couple of hours. We were informed they were giving him twice the maximum dosage of medication just to keep him alive. They said they were not sure if the ant bites caused the infection or not but come on, I'm sure it didn't help matters.

A week and a half went by and he developed another infection and at this time they discovered that his brain bleeding had increased to stage 4 from the previous stage 2 before the incident. He passed on that Saturday afternoon, he was 5 weeks old. My wife and are on an emotional roller coaster and no longer have faith in that facility. I ask what they have done to prevent this from happening to my other son that’s still there. They didn't have an answer, I suggested to start ask everyone to eat and drink in the break room and not in the NICU but, that was completely blown off, it looks like a buffet every time we go in there.

We feel trapped, we can not get a transfer from our insurance to another hospital for my other son. What do we do, we feel like hostages to the system.

Thank you

[RRevak]

HOW the heck did ANTS get into your child's incubator???!!!!!!

[barry1817]

Originally Posted by captgriggs

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MS

Any advice about this is greatly appreciated. To start, my wife was forced to deliver our triplets early @ 22 1/2 weeks. We were constantly told that with today’s technology these situations have good chances. We understood the risks involved but, there was nothing to decide, they were coming anyway. My 1st child passed within 24 hours which was expected because he greatly underweight. The other two actually stood a good chance.

He was making great progress and seemed to stabilize as much as could be expected. We got a call a Thursday evening and were told that ants have got in to his incubator/bed and had bitten him several times but, he seems to be alright. Within 24 hours we received another call requesting us to come to the hospital because, he was fading fast and wasn't expected to make it through the next couple of hours. We were informed they were giving him twice the maximum dosage of medication just to keep him alive. They said they were not sure if the ant bites caused the infection or not but come on, I'm sure it didn't help matters.

A week and a half went by and he developed another infection and at this time they discovered that his brain bleeding had increased to stage 4 from the previous stage 2 before the incident. He passed on that Saturday afternoon, he was 5 weeks old. My wife and are on an emotional roller coaster and no longer have faith in that facility. I ask what they have done to prevent this from happening to my other son that’s still there. They didn't have an answer, I suggested to start ask everyone to eat and drink in the break room and not in the NICU but, that was completely blown off, it looks like a buffet every time we go in there.

We feel trapped, we can not get a transfer from our insurance to another hospital for my other son. What do we do, we feel like hostages to the system.

Thank you

I am willing to venture that there might be regulations regarding food in treatment areas, that are code sectioned, and the failure to follow such regulations would be a good place to start.

Might also want to read about infection control guidelines, because bringing food and eating in such an environment could also be code sectioned and failure to follow code opens a door to charges of gross negligence which can not be defended in court, in front of a jury.

[justalayman]

I would suggest since your insurance will not allow a transfer, you stay with your child as much as possible both to bond with your child but also to observe the situation.


I would also suggest you find an attorney to represent you in a possible medical malpractice claim so any pertinent information can be obtained and sequestered to preserve it.

An attorney would also be helpful in dealing with the insurance company in an attempt to transfer your child to another medical provider.

[lya]

Although there does appear to be negligent management of the NICU as regards food, I believe it will come down to the "but for" requirement of a medmal claim. It must be stated by a neonatal expert that "but for" the ant bites, the baby would have lived. I do not believe that an expert will agree that "but for" the ant bites the baby would have lived.

A fetus/baby of that gestation is quite underdeveloped in every way. The prognosis is about 5% chance of surviving and even less of a chance for not having serious physical and brain-activity problems.

If the surviving triplet succeeds in continuing to develop into a full term baby, it will truly be a miracle.

Circling back to the food issue, it is a breach of every set of standards with which I am familiar. The most simple way to prove their violation is to review the policy and procedure manual. An attorney can request the "table of contents" pages, locate the policy, and request only that section, which will save mega bucks and time.

Due to the blatant infractions regarding food in a patient care area and due to actual patient harm's having resulted from the infractions, it is possible that the hospital will make a monetary settlement with the parents. I would also request absolute proof of the filing of a sentinel event report with JCAHO and/or CMS (Medicare & Medicaid).

[Antigone*of*Greece]

OP,

No legal advice here. Just wanted to say I'm sorry for your loss and I pray for your family to be given the strength and grace it needs to get throught this difficult time.

~ ana

[LocalRocket]

Oh, no. Captgriggs, I am so very sorry to hear of the loss of your two babies. I lived in the NICU with my youngest for 5 months before she passed away form an eventual brain hemorrhage. This is the most painful kind of loss, and the fact that you are going through it doubly, with negligence involved, and while caring for your critically ill remaining son... this has to be be stretching both you and your wife to the brink.

The ant situation is horrific. I don't have a lot of advice legally, but I now volunteer as a liason between families and hospital care teams, and I can tell you what I know or have seen. Let me start by saying that as frustrating as it may be, you do NOT want to have your son transferred to another hospital. It would be far too traumatic on his little body. If you choose to pursue legal action, you will have plenty of time to do so once you and your wife and your little one have all stabalized.

Your wishes about food can be made abundantly clear, and should absolutely be respected. In Washington State where I lived at the time, it was against policy for nurses or family to have any food or drink (with the exception of a closed water bottle) within the NICU. Gosh, it doesn't have to be against the law in order for them to take live-saving precautions. Try to have one of you present with baby as often as possible, and request that your son be assigned to a primary care team. This way, just a handful of nurses, preferably ones whom you have identified as being the most comfortable to you, can know what your specific concerns are, look after your concerns in your absence, and hopefully bond with your baby in a way that the random merry-go-round of nurses cannot. Any NICU qualified to treat preemies as young as your babies will have the means and systems in place to handle complicated care and come to an understanding with the families who need to "live" there for a while.

All I can say is that you are not ridiculous to feel like a hostage... in a sense, you ARE hostages to this situation. But stay as close to your baby as possible, celebrate any small milestone, take pictures, and before you know it the weeks will pass by quickly. Darn it. My heart really, really goes out to you and your wife. I'm sure that you know this will take a very long time before your lives can attempt to settle into even a new normal. I'll keep you all in my prayers.

[barry1817]

I am reading that others seem to be in agreement about food in treatment areas being negligent.

This is why you need an attorney to deal with the situation, and to confirm the code sections and violations of codes, because I can tell you from experience, that if a doctor/dentist or any health care provider can be shown to be practicing below the minimum standards of care, the "but if" scenario does not always apply. The negligence by itself is something that the provider than has to prove didn't cause the problem, and has to defend practicing below the standard of care.Often this type of case will never go to trial because if one can imagine a jury hearing about the death of a child while the providers were negligent defense attorneys should then be looking to minimize their potential loss.

[LocalRocket]

Lya,

I am VERY, VERY surprised that you are using this venue to prove your superior knowledge about the age difference between a fetus and an infant. These parents are grieving the loss of two of their babies and the life of the third is at very high risk, and you'd like to take the opportunity to trivialize their loss. Really, how dare you. Especially since your post does not contribute anything of useful legal knowledge. You should be ashamed, and for the sake of this grieving family, delete your post. Obviously, the hospital caring for them, no matter how negligent in the ant bite issue, considered these babies to be at an age of potential viability, or else they couldn't have LEGALLY treated them as anything more than a miscarriage by offering life-sustaining measures. Besides, if you've got any current information at ALL, you would know that 20 weeks is the cut-off between miscarriage and stillbirth. Frankly, I'm shocked that someone with your supposed experience hasn't been better trained to deal with such situations. I am literally shaking with anger at you, and I've never had a premature baby... my sick baby was born full term. Captgriggs & family, please tune this person out and pay them no mind.

[swrdmbo]

Lya...I am also appalled at your callousness. Your post was absolutely unnecessary and cold.

I have NEVER heard of a baby in NICU, that is receiving treatment called a fetus! He is their child, as was the baby that passed from the complications and ant bites.

You claim to be an expert... you may even be correct in your clinical analysis... but ... WHOA.....you need to take some classes in bedside manner AND sensitivity.

Capt. you have my deepest sympathies in the loss of your two sons, and I pray that your son will overcome the odds. I honestly don't know why someone would post something like lya did.

[lya]

The truth is the truth and the statement was made for impact--impact that a fetus at 22 1/2 weeks is nowhere near developed, nowhere near capable of living outside the womb, nowhere near the same as a full-term baby; therefore, all aspects of this potential claim must be in the context of an undeveloped baby or fetus of 22 1/2 weeks.

Bedside manner--like I'm at a bedside or in a therapeutic relationship with a patient...this is a med-legal forum, not a hand-holding session or a feel-good, song-singing, share the love get-together.

[lya]

Originally Posted by LocalRocket

Lya,

I am VERY, VERY surprised that you are using this venue to prove your superior knowledge about the age difference between a fetus and an infant. These parents are grieving the loss of two of their babies and the life of the third is at very high risk, and you'd like to take the opportunity to trivialize their loss. Really, how dare you. Especially since your post does not contribute anything of useful legal knowledge. You should be ashamed, and for the sake of this grieving family, delete your post. Obviously, the hospital caring for them, no matter how negligent in the ant bite issue, considered these babies to be at an age of potential viability, or else they couldn't have LEGALLY treated them as anything more than a miscarriage by offering life-sustaining measures. Besides, if you've got any current information at ALL, you would know that 20 weeks is the cut-off between miscarriage and stillbirth. Frankly, I'm shocked that someone with your supposed experience hasn't been better trained to deal with such situations. I am literally shaking with anger at you, and I've never had a premature baby... my sick baby was born full term. Captgriggs & family, please tune this person out and pay them no mind.

At 22 1/2 weeks gestation, efforts would be made to stop pre-term labor; that is the 'cut-off' to which you are referring. 22 1/2 weeks for a triplet is way more serious than for a single pregnancy; still, efforts would be made to stop labor or to 'save' the 'baby'.

Go ahead and be mad, shake, rattle, and roll.

[justalayman]

lya, if you want to get technical, here is an excerpt from:

[url=http://www.slate.com/id/1060/]Fetal Viability - By Franklin Foer - Slate Magazine[/url]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion. And this seems to be the case--up to a point. Doctors now believe a fetus can become viable during the 23rd week--a week earlier than was thought 24 years ago. Most hospitals will only perform abortions through the 22nd week of pregnancy.

Not claiming that site is the most reliable source but it stated clearly what many other sites also stated.

So, 22 1/2 weeks? First, I have yet to see a doc that could hit the date of conception within a couple weeks let alone a portion of a week accurately.

as such, a time period of 22 weeks not going to be 100% dependable.

but regardless of the viability or any other technicality:

your response was simply callous and worthless. It provided no insight to the OP's situation. It provided them no information that really meant a damn thing. Their child was alive, now it isn't. The child was born alive and and the hospital was attempting to continue that life. Whether it was "technically viable" or not is irrelevent.

Bedside manner--like I'm at a bedside or in a therapeutic relationship with a patient...this is a med-legal forum, not a hand-holding session or a feel-good, song-singing, share the love get-together.

that has nothing to do with the fact this hospital has obviously made a grievous error and the OP has lost faith in that hospital and the OP is being prevented from transferring their other child to another hospital. None of it has anything to do with when a fetus becomes viable.

[ecmst12]

The point WAS relevent. It directly affects the viability of OP's case. The death of a baby born that premature is the most likely outcome under the BEST of circumstances. That means any negligence by the hospital could not have been the only cause of death. A 5% chance of survival can hardly be considered a "good" chance.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

The point WAS relevent. It directly affects the viability of OP's case. The death of a baby born that premature is the most likely outcome under the BEST of circumstances. That means any negligence by the hospital could not have been the only cause of death. A 5% chance of survival can hardly be considered a "good" chance.

No, it really is not relevant. example: If a person is laying in the hospital severely burned and maybe expected to survive, if a person comes in and causes an infection that would not have been involved if it were not for their negligence, the fact the person was possibly going to die does not reduce the culpability of the negligent person. While they may have not been expected to live, the fact that the infection, at least, hastened their death makes the negligent person culpable for their death. Unless a doctor can say with certainty the person would not survive, then the negligent person is at fault for the death.

Unless the med profession can say with certainty the child would not have survived, if the ant bites had anything to do with the infection, the hospital is culpable for the death.
Let me put it in Lya's terms; if the child may have survived but for the attack of the ants, the hospital caused the death. It doesn't even have to be a sure thing that the child would have survived. Just a reasonable possibility.

He was making great progress and seemed to stabilize as much as could be expected. We got a call a Thursday evening and were told that ants have got in to his incubator/bed and had bitten him several times but, he seems to be alright. Within 24 hours we received another call requesting us to come to the hospital because, he was fading fast and wasn't expected to make it through the next couple of hours. We were informed they were giving him twice the maximum dosage of medication just to keep him alive. They said they were not sure if the ant bites caused the infection or not

since you are in insurance ecmst12, you ought to understand the phrase; you take them as they are; meaning, as an example, if a person has a broken back and gets into a car accident (other persons fault), the at fault person cannot claim the only reason the other driver is now paralyzed from a severed spinal cord at the point of the previous break was because the person was already in a susceptible condition.

you take them as they are.