Failure to prevent aspiration
A woman came to the ED with abdominal pain, nausea, and constipation.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/804d2/804d269ed014b366d3611e103dbf4a801e4d58f2" alt=""
Presentation
A 54-year-old woman came to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain, nausea, and constipation. She was admitted for 23-hour observation, given a suppository and a half bottle of magnesium citrate. Dicyclomine was also administered to alleviate cramping.
An abdominal film revealed evidence of a possible ileus or early small bowel obstruction. The patient was kept NPO in preparation for surgery.
Two days later, a small bowel series and a CT scan with contrast was obtained. The patient was given meperidine and promethazine for pain. The CT scan revealed a small bowel obstruction from an incarcerated right femoral hernia. The patient told the general surgeon that she had the hernia for years with no change, and that her physician had advised her to leave it alone.
The general surgeon planned to do a right femoral herniorrhaphy, but advised the patient there was a possibility that the bowel could be strangulated and would require resection. The patient’s abdomen was noted to be distended and firm. She was subsequently taken to the anesthesia holding area.
Physician action
Prior to the induction of anesthesia, and while the general surgeon applied cricoid pressure, the patient vomited approximately two liters of gastric contents. The oropharynx was suctioned and the patient was placed in a Trendelenburg position and intubated.
The anesthesiologist performed a bronchoscopy and the patient aspirated more material. The bronchi were suctioned. The surgery proceeded, and at the end of the surgery the anesthesiologist performed another bronchoscopy. Small amounts of material were removed.
The patient was transferred to the ICU where she suffered respiratory failure and was put on ventilator support. She later developed signs of sepsis. A week after the surgery, the patient became hypotensive and bradycardic and was placed on epinephrine and atropine. The patient subsequently arrested and died despite resuscitative efforts.
Allegations
The patient’s family filed a lawsuit alleging the anesthesiologist failed to prevent the aspiration and failed to insert an NG tube before induction of anesthesia. The general surgeon was also named in the suit.
Legal implications
The primary issue in this case involved whether or not an NG tube should have been placed before induction of anesthesia, when the patient came to the holding area with a fully distended abdomen. The plaintiff’s expert testified that had an NG tube been placed before induction of anesthesia, the vomiting, the aspiration, and the subsequent complications leading to the patient’s death would not have occurred.
Defense experts testified that NG tubes are normally inserted after induction, but efforts should be made to reduce the volume in the abdomen. Defense consultants shared similar opinions. A consultant anesthesiologist stated that the placement of an NG tube is “the responsibility of the surgeon.” A consultant general surgeon stated, “it would have been appropriate to place a Levine tube to decompress the patient’s stomach prior to surgery and before sedation.” This reviewer felt that the anesthesiologist had a patient who had not been properly prepped before surgery.
The anesthesia nursing notes indicated that the patient was alert, awake, and oriented times three. However, the anesthesiologist’s record contained a late entry and reflected that the patient was sedated upon arrival with decreased mental status. The patient’s sister (a fact witness and not a party to the suit) testified that the patient was alert when she arrived at the holding area.
The anesthesiologist also wrote that this was an emergent situation, but the general surgeon did not indicate the surgery was emergent, only urgent. The plaintiff and defense experts all testified that if the patient had been awake and alert, it would have been appropriate to insert an NG tube in an effort to reduce the volume in the abdomen.
Disposition
This case was settled on behalf of the surgeon and the anesthesiology group.
More on improper performance.
Risk management for anesthesiologists.
Disclaimer
This closed claim study is based on an actual malpractice claim from Texas Medical Liability Trust. This case illustrates how action or inaction on the part of the physicians led to allegations of professional liability, and how risk management techniques may have either prevented the outcome or increased the physician’s defensibility. This study has been modified to protect the privacy of the physicians and the patient.
Subscribe to Case Closed to receive insights from resolved cases.
You’ll receive two closed claim studies every month. These closed claim studies are provided to help physicians improve patient safety and reduce potential liability risks that may arise when treating patients.
Related Case Studies
Discover more insights, stories, and resources to keep you informed and inspired.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68583/685834a9c3d860d2298a5fa0ca71f68c96e58ae9" alt=""
Retained foreign object
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0bfa0/0bfa04ff58e29754ad601ef9b374aed994406d92" alt=""
Improper performance of TURP
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6cc0d/6cc0da5ec30c8d1586b7669bd4f42f6de187ff9d" alt=""