Washington V Washington

1. Rule of Law

2. Application

3. Conclusion

3.1. The court found that Washington Hospital Center provided substandard care during Ms.Thompson surgery. Washington Hospital Center should have followed the national standard of care to monitor the patient during surgery

4. What is the standard of care?

4.1. According to the article entitled Standards for Patient Monitoring During Anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, published in August 1986 in the Journal of American Medical Association, stated that “monitoring end-tidal carbon dioxide is an emerging standard and is strongly preferred.

4.2. Was the defendant negligent?

4.3. The defendant could have used end-tidal carbon monoxide monitor, which could have prevented the catastrophic event that occurred during the surgery.

5. According to the national institute of cancer, standard of care is the treatment that is accepted by medical experts as a proper treatment for a certain type of disease and that is widely used by healthcare professionals. Dr. Steen testified that by 1985, the carbon dioxide monitors were available in many other hospitals. Washington health center should have made available a carbon dioxide monitor during Ms. Thompson surgery .

6. Facts

6.1. Parties

6.1.1. Washington Hospital Center

6.1.2. Thompson family

7. What happened?

7.1. LaVerne Alice Thompson, 36 year-old woman, underwent elective abortion and tubal ligation surgery requiring general anesthesia at the Washington Hospital Center. Prior to surgery, the nurse anesthetist inserted an endotracheal tube to provide oxygen during surgery and remove carbon dioxide

7.2. The nurse anesthetist improperly inserted the endotracheal tube into the patient esophagus. During the surgery, the patient went into cardiac arrest. As a result, Ms. Thompson sustained brain damage due to the lack of oxygen and remained in a persistent vegetative state