Page 1 of 1

An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:45 am
by A-1 (imported)
STORY (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19251478?GT1=10056)

Updated: 3:23 p.m. ET June 15, 2007

LOS ANGELES - An inner-city hospital is struggling to survive amid a new report of breakdowns in patient care, the replacement of its chief medical officer and an ultimatum to correct long-running problems or close.

Newly released tapes of 911 calls reveal that a woman who lay bleeding on the floor of the emergency room died last month after dispatchers refused to contact paramedics or an ambulance to take her to another facility.

The woman’s treatment was “callous, it was a horrible thing,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Burke said Wednesday.

Earlier this week, the county Board of Supervisors grilled health officials about conditions at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital. It ordered them to return in two weeks with a plan to deal with a hospital shutdown if it is unable to correct deficiencies laid out in a federal inspection that concluded emergency room patients were in “immediate jeopardy.”

The federal review was based, in part, on a report that a man with a brain tumor waited four days in the emergency room when he needed to be transferred to another facility for lifesaving brain surgery.

Hospital given deadline

After the inspection last week, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services gave the hospital 23 days to correct problems or face a loss of federal funding. That could force it to close.

Burke said the county-run hospital is a crucial facility and that nearby hospitals could not handle its patient load.

“I can’t tell you whether it can be fixed but ... the community can not stand to lose another emergency room,” she said.

Dr. Roger Peeks, the hospital’s chief medical officer, was placed on “ordered absence” Monday and replaced on an interim basis by Dr. Robert Splawn, senior medical officer for the county health department. Department spokesman Michael Wilson confirmed the change but declined to elaborate Wednesday, saying it was a personnel matter.

Health officials are “doing everything in our power to help MLK-Harbor meet national standards,” Dr. Bruce Chernof, director of the health department, said in a statement.

In a report to the supervisors on Tuesday, Chernof said quality of care had improved but warned that there was no “roadmap” for what he called the most difficult effort to “reinvent a failing hospital” ever undertaken in the United States. The hospital has served “thousands of patients well and a few very poorly,” he said.

The hospital, formerly known as King-Drew, was built several years after the 1965 Watts riot to provide medical care in the South Los Angeles area. It has been cited more than a dozen times in 3½ years for inadequate care that has led to patient deaths and injuries.

The facility came under renewed scrutiny with the release of the 911 calls in the case of Edith Isabel Rodriguez, 43, who died of a perforated bowel on May 9. Her death was ruled accidental by the Los Angeles County coroner’s office.

‘Inexcusable’ delay

Relatives said she lay in pain for 45 minutes before dying, a delay Chernof has called “inexcusable.”

A security camera may have recorded the scene, but the tape was not being made public because of patient privacy laws, Wilson said Wednesday.

“We know we have the responsibility to make sure justice is done for our mother,” said Rodriguez’s son, Edmundo Rodriguez, 25.

In his report, Chernof said the hospital violated requirements to medically screen the woman. The person who failed to arrange the examination resigned and others in the emergency room were “counseled and written findings placed in their personnel files,” the report said.

Rodriguez’s boyfriend, Jose Prado, used a pay phone outside the hospital to call 911 and told a dispatcher, through a Spanish interpreter: “My wife is dying and the nurses don’t want to help her out.”

A second 911 call was placed eight minutes later by a bystander who requested that an ambulance be sent to take Rodriguez to another hospital for care. The dispatcher argued with the woman over whether there really was an emergency, refused to call paramedics and eventually cut off the call.

Sheriff’s department spokesman Steve Whitmore said the department was reviewing the handling of the 911 calls by two of its dispatchers.

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:59 pm
by sag111 (imported)
This remindes me of the 911 calls to the California Highway Patroal a few weeks back when concerned citizens called about a fire.The 911 responce was forget it as it is a controaled burn but their was no controled burnes in the Lake Taho areia that day.Would it have saved thoes 200 homes well maybe some but time again was lost and the fire was well out of controal befor help arrived luckley no lives were lost as in that emergency room.

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:44 am
by Riverwind (imported)
I sense a deeper problem here, that this is one of those "well there just poor non white folks so what do we care". Well we should care a lot, just one more reason for universal health care.

River

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:44 pm
by MacTheWolf (imported)
60 Minutes had an episode on Martin Luther King Hospital a few months ago: It appears the hospital was receiving lots of homeless, thus uninsured, patients so it was just giving them a cursory examination then dumping them off on Skid Row in Los Angeles wearing just a hospital gown.

Now that's shoddy service.

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:22 pm
by A-1 (imported)
MacTheWolf (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:44 pm 60 Minutes had an episode on Martin Luther King Hospital a few months ago: It appears the hospital was receiving lots of homeless, thus uninsured, patients so it was just giving them a cursory examination then dumping them off on Skid Row in Los Angeles wearing just a hospital gown.

Now that's shoddy service.

It is also ILLEGAL.... :shakemitk

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:03 pm
by kristoff
A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:22 pm It is also ILLEGAL.... :shakemitk

Didnt stop em, even when they showed film on TV

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:46 pm
by Francis (imported)
MacTheWolf (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:44 pm 60 Minutes had an episode on Martin Luther King Hospital a few months ago: It appears the hospital was receiving lots of homeless, thus uninsured, patients so it was just giving them a cursory examination then dumping them off on Skid Row in Los Angeles wearing just a hospital gown.

Now that's shoddy service.

I agree that its shoddy service but its likely that they cannot afford to do too much more for non-paying (read non-funded) patients. The fault is not the hospital per se, it is the fault of a system that does not provide the means for a safety blanket for these people. Can't blame the hospital if they are expected to provide for these people out of their own limited resources. The proper term here is probably triage service

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:36 am
by kristoff
Francis (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:46 pm I agree that its shoddy service but its likely that they cannot afford to do too much more for non-paying (read non-funded) patients. The fault is not the hospital per se, it is the fault of a system that does not provide the means for a safety blanket for these people. Can't blame the hospital if they are expected to provide for these people out of their own limited resources. The proper term here is probably triage service

Federal law requires that ERs must treat ANY / ALL patients presenting for treatment, etc. Of course, the Feds provide no funding for their mandate. That is why so many public hospitals are privatizing, and so many are reducing the scope of their ERs. If the presentment is not something in their realm they don't treat....

Re: An Emergency Room NOT to go to...

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:42 am
by A-1 (imported)
kristoff wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:36 am Federal law requires that ERs must treat ANY / ALL patients presenting for treatment, etc. Of course, the Feds provide no funding for their mandate. That is why so many public hospitals are privatizing, and so many are reducing the scope of their ERs. If the presentment is not something in their realm they don't treat....

Yes, but they MUST provide STABLIZING treatment and transfer to a facility that CAN treat.

Otherwise, they are Attorney meat...if you get my drift...