hospital

[ridgerunner10]

my wife went to the hospital because she was haveing severe pain just below her breast and in her back. she is very up with a lot of medical terms and was almost sure it was her gaul bladder. she was given a shot for the pain in the emergency room and admitted for futher tests by her family doctor .
he in turn called in another doctor from a different hospital to exam her. this other doctor said he found a stone logged in her tract and that it would have to be removed by him in his hospital. so the next day she was told that she could not have any solid food to eat or anything to eat at all because it would irrate her bladder. so she went without food. our family doctor said that after she had this stone removed that he in turn would remove her gaul bladder after she had time to recover.
today she went to have the stone removed and when she went to the other hospital they did a scope and said that although her gaul bladder was full of stones she had none floating around as she was told. they sent her back to our hospital. he may release her tomorrow and she has to come back in a week or two to have her gaul bladder removed.
now my question is this 1st she has to go and have a stone removed that isnt there. then she is not allowed to eat for 3 days because her doctor forgot to tell her she could eat what ever she wanted as long as it does not bother her and then she is told she can go home but has to come back.
she was in there for over 4 days and could have had it removed already and been back home 2 days ago. i ask if there is any legal recourse that can be taken for the way she was treated. thank you

 

[ellencee]

my wife went to the hospital because she was haveing severe pain just below her breast and in her back. she is very up with a lot of medical terms and was almost sure it was her gaul bladder. she was given a shot for the pain in the emergency room and admitted for futher tests by her family doctor .
he in turn called in another doctor from a different hospital to exam her. this other doctor said he found a stone logged in her tract and that it would have to be removed by him in his hospital. so the next day she was told that she could not have any solid food to eat or anything to eat at all because it would irrate her bladder. so she went without food. our family doctor said that after she had this stone removed that he in turn would remove her gaul bladder after she had time to recover.
today she went to have the stone removed and when she went to the other hospital they did a scope and said that although her gaul bladder was full of stones she had none floating around as she was told. they sent her back to our hospital. he may release her tomorrow and she has to come back in a week or two to have her gaul bladder removed.
now my question is this 1st she has to go and have a stone removed that isnt there. then she is not allowed to eat for 3 days because her doctor forgot to tell her she could eat what ever she wanted as long as it does not bother her and then she is told she can go home but has to come back.
she was in there for over 4 days and could have had it removed already and been back home 2 days ago. i ask if there is any legal recourse that can be taken for the way she was treated. thank you

The stone moved out of the duct; that is not a bad thing. Although I don't understand why the second hospital could not have removed the gallbladder even though no stone was blocking the duct, I see no significant damage caused by an act of professional negligence. I don't understand why the original surgeon has not removed the gallbladder, either. Most likely, your wife is sick and suffering from an infection; her surgeon is reducing the risks by delaying surgery until such a time as the infection/fever has resolved.

Not eating before a procedure is expected. Not eating for three days is often necessary to heal any part of the digestive tract. I feel certain that resting her GI tract for three days provided your wife with more benefit than harm.

A medical malpractice lawsuit must be brought on behalf of a plaintiff who incurred significant damage(s) as a result of negligence. Your wife was not significantly damaged; that rules out any medical malpractice lawsuit.

Best wishes,
EC

 

[justalayman]

Was the procedure to remove the stone from the duct an ERCP?

How did the doc diagnose a stone in the duct? While a stone in the duct may be speculated, the ercp is a diagnostic procedure to verify the existance of stones. Stones , in the duct, can be removed as well during this procedure.

an ercp is performed by passing the needed tools through the stomach and into the common duct and continued upwards to the gall bladder. If a stone is encountered, it can be removed at that point. If a stone was in the duct, as ellencee stated, it may have simply passed on into the intestine. An ercp is not a surgical procedure so it would not allow the removal of the bladder during this procedure.

I don't understand why she didn't eat for three days. It sounds as if this may have been done by your own mistake or at least a misunderstanding. When an ercp is performed, the doc definately does not want anything in the gut or upper intestine. After that, you should have been able to eat as desired. But as ellencee posted, different types of foods will cause agitation and discomfort. I do know from experience that one can go without eating for 2 weeks and not be harmed.

I don't understand why the removal surgery was not performed while in the hospital. It would seem to me they probably should have but there may have been reasons not disclosed to you. Ask the doc, he is the one to make the decision. There may have been a scheduling situation that neccessitated the wait. Gall stones, although painful, under normal circumstances are not an emergency procedure and would result in the patient going through the normal scheduling procedure.

I can't see where not only is there no malpractice but actually reasonably good care.