From the November 2022 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
Hospital not liable for neglect of patient burned during MR scan
In October, the California Court of Appeals reaffirmed a lower court ruling that a hospital was not guilty of neglect after a patient was burned during an MR procedure there.
Ad Statistics
Times Displayed: 185946
Times Visited: 4762 For those who need to move fast and expand clinical capabilities -- and would love new equipment -- the uCT 550 Advance offers a new fully configured 80-slice CT in up to 2 weeks with routine maintenance and parts and Software Upgrades for Life™ included.
The man, who died from unrelated circumstances, underwent an electrocardiogram and MR imaging in 2016 at Glendale Adventist Medical Center after waking up “weaker than usual,” according to the news outlet, Human Resources Director.
The man was wearing ECG pads during the scan and came out with a burn on his abdomen. The MR technologist was not trained on the dangers of ECG pads in MR machines but did check him for metal and his medical history before the exam.
The patient filed a civil complaint in 2018, alleging that the hospital failed to screen him properly. Following his death, his estate took over the suit. The case is named Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center.
During the trial, a diagnostic radiology specialist representing the estate said the hospital did not abide by industry or radiology care standards during screening, and that employees lacked proper training.
A reconstructive plastic surgery specialist who spoke on behalf of the hospital said performing an MR scan with ECG pads was within the standard of care and consistent with exams in outpatient surgery centers and hospitals. They said the pads did not cause the burns; that the actual cause was unknowable; and that the plaintiff had a history of ill health, including coronary artery disease and diabetes.
Steven Ford
Possible problems with this study
March 08, 2023 12:47
The study was partially sponsored by the manufacturer of the ultra low field MRI and some of the physicians were investors in that company. This alone does not mean that the study is invalid.
The study you cite DOES NOT show that the low field MRI is nearly as effective as high field MRI in diagnosing stroke. Most importantly, the patients imaged in the ULF scanner had already been diagnosed with a stroke before imaging a second time with the low field machine. A more rigorous study would use a double-blind process.
Secondly, some of the patients were previously imaged using CT, not MRI. This is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.
The MRI scanner in question has limited resolution compared with virtually every MRI in the USA, even 20-year old scanners. It cannot image very small tumors or bleeds.
Finally, the study states that about 80% of the strokes were correctly identified. A more accurate headline would be 'ULF MRI leads to correct diagnosis 80% of the time' or 'ULF MRI Better Than Nothing'. More critically but more accurately, 'ULF MRI is a Poor Alternative if You Have Another Choice'.
A more meaningful study would compare low-cost CT scans to the use of this innovative and clever scanner, because they are more readily available and less costly.
This study has anecdotal value.
to rate and post a comment