If the federal administration is serious about reducing the number of serious medical errors occurring in hospitals, it might want to make these errors less lucrative for hospitals. According to a new study, many hospitals do not have enough incentive to reduce the number of errors in their facilities, simply because they are compensated very handsomely by the insurers for these errors.

Take for instance, a case where a person has been severely injured as a result of the surgical error, and undergoes another surgery to fix the problem. In such cases, the hospital will be additionally reimbursed by the insurer.

The results of the study were published recently in The Journal of the American Medical Association, and are based on an analysis of records involving the 34,256 patients who underwent surgery in 2010. Out of these patients, 1,820 developed preventable complications, like pneumonia. The average hospital stay for these patients increased by 14 days, and the hospital revenue averaged an increase of $30,500 more than, for those patients who had not suffered any complication.

In the case of persons without preventable complications, the average hospital revenue was about $18,900, while in the case of patients with complications, the revenue was approximately $49,400. Private insurers ended up paying hospitals much more for the surgical complications, compared to Medicare or Medicaid or patients who paid their own medical expenses.

Arizona medical malpractice lawyers do not believe that hospitals purposely make medical errors in order to make more money. But they do believe that if the reimbursement system is changed so that hospitals do not make as much money from medical errors and preventable surgical complications, then they would have an incentive to establish stronger safety protocols to prevent errors.

According to new research, closed windows in large hospital wards may increase the risks of patients contracting hospital-acquired infections.

Researchers at the University of Leeds conducted the study, and the results of the study have been published in the online issue of the Building And Environment Journal.

The researchers determined the patients’ risk of inhaling dangerous disease-causing germs, by using carbon dioxide as a tracer gas. Detectors were placed near the positions where beds might be located in a typical hospital ward. The researchers measured the concentration of carbon dioxide cover a period of time, and were able to determine the extent of exposure at the location of each bed. By doing this, they were able to gauge the potential risk of infection to the patient.

They found that when the ward windows were open, the ventilation was of good quality, and the risk of suffering a hospital-acquired airborne infection was quite low. However, when the hospital ward windows were closed, the risk of suffering an infection increased by as much as 4 times.

According to the researchers, these wards are generally safe when the windows are open, and there's good ventilation that allows infection-causing pathogens to drift outside. However, when the windows are closed, it dramatically increases the risks of contracting a hospital-acquired infection. The windows are generally closed during winter, or in many cases are permanently sealed to lower energy costs for the hospital.

Quite a few of the hospital buildings in the United Kingdom were designed back in the Victorian period, when closed windows were the norm. Similar hospital designs are also fairly popular in the United States. Arizona medical malpractice lawyers recommend that that these building designs be reevaluated in order to make them safer for patients.

Henry Ford Hospital researchers have confirmed an increase in hospital-acquired infections involving cancer patients. Based on a nationwide survey, the researchers found an increase in infections over a ten-year period. However the fatality rate from those infections actually dropped.

Cancer patients are typically believed to be at a high risk of hospital-acquired infections because the disease often requires that they undergo multiple surgeries. Their immune systems are already weakened by the malignant tumors in the body, and because of this, these people may be at a high risk for infections.

According to the research, the incidence of hospital-acquired infections for patients who underwent surgery for cancer, increased by 2.7% annually over the 10-year study period. However, the number of fatalities dropped 1.3% annually over the study period.
This study was different because it focused exclusively on hospital-acquired infection rates among cancer patients. Traditionally, these patients are left out of studies conducted into hospital-acquired infections, because their condition exposes them to more surgery and therefore, more infection risks.

There has been a bright spotlight on hospital-acquired infections recently, especially on the development of strategies to reduce the risk of these infections to reduce healthcare costs. However, much of the spotlight has focused on bloodstream infections, surgical site infections and MRSA infections, and not infections involving cancer patients.

There were other findings from the study that Arizona medical malpractice attorneys find very intriguing. For instance, the study finds that African-American patients reported a 26% increase in hospital-acquired infections, much higher than the rate for white patients. Also, a cancer patient's risk of contracting hospital-acquired infections increased by between 18% and 67%, if he was uninsured, or if he was on Medicare or Medicaid.

Distractions involving smart phones have been blamed for an increasing number of errors in the transportation sector, affecting everything from road safety to aviation safety. It's easy to assume therefore, that those very same distractions can cause errors when it is doctors and nurses, and not just pilots and truck drivers using cell phones and other texting devices at work.

A new policy statement released by the American Association of nurse anesthetists says that the use of smart phones for non-medical purposes, by nurses, doctors and other staff in an operating room is a very serious threat to patient safety. One of the findings that have been reported in the research is from a 2003 survey, which focused on anesthesiologists. Out of the more than 4,000 anesthesiologists who were surveyed, 98 reported that they had observed cell phone use, interfering with medical equipment in the operating room.

However, there is no significant evidence to suggest that mobile phones severely interfere with medical equipment when they are used in an operating room.

Another major risk that emerges when nurses and doctors use smart phones in the operating room is the risk of transmission of bacteria from these mobile devices to the hands of the doctors or nurses. According to one study, which was cited in the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists report, even after staff had used hand sanitizer, the mobile devices continued to have pathogens on them. This presented a serious risk that the germs could get transferred from the devices to the hands of the user.

It's not uncommon to find doctors chatting on cell phones, or nurses playing games on their smart phones, while a surgery is on. There is a lackadaisical attitude to such practices, and Arizona medical malpractice lawyers find that this is primarily due to the fact that there is very little reliable information available about the risks of such practices.

A new report by the American Hospital Association Committee on Research has interesting findings for Arizona medical malpractice attorneys and health experts invested in improving American healthcare. The report finds that engaging patients, their families and staff members can have a positive effect on patient safety, reducing the risk of medical errors, and enhancing patient satisfaction. Such engagement could also boost the overall quality of patient care

The report recommends that hospitals invest more in patient and family engagement by creating advisory councils. The council can consist of patients and family advisors, and there have been solid examples of the success of such experiments around the country. For instance, at Georgia Health Sciences Health System in Augusta, patients are involved in all aspects of the operations of the hospital. They are involved in decisions related to anesthesia staffing, patient handouts, patient rounds, medication dispensing and other aspects that affect patient safety. The council in the Augusta hospital consists of more than 200 patient and family advisors.

The report also recommends the elimination of restrictions on patient-visiting policies. Many of the existing policies and restrictions are in place because of the risk of spread of infectious diseases to patients who are already in a weakened immune state. However, according to the report, in several cases, hospitals have experimented successfully with lowering restrictions on visiting hours, resulting in a substantial effect on patient satisfaction and care. For instance, the New Jersey Atlantic Health System lowered its one-hour restriction on patient visit times, and that has resulted in an increase in patient satisfaction.

The engagement of patients and their families also helps increase the feedback quality in hospitals, helping healthcare facilities track their progress in reducing medical errors.