Page 1 of 11
California – Neurology – Lack Of Documentation When Diagnosing Neuropathic Pain, RLS, and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome With Normal Neurological Examination
A 43-year-old male was referred by his primary care physician to a neurologist for multiple medical issues, including obesity, chronic post-operative pain following lumbar spine surgery, major depressive disorder, familial tremor, shoulder pain, excessive daytime sleepiness, congestive heart failure, and peripheral neuropathy. The patient had been on Norco and was switched to Tramadol. The dose of Tramadol was 100 mg 4 times a day. Other medications were trazodone 100 mg h.s., zolpidem 10 mg h.s., HCTZ 25 mg, Lasix 40 mg, Flomax 0.5 mg, and topiramate 100 mg twice daily.
On 3/27/2014, the neurologist saw the patient for an office visit. The patient complained of symptoms of foot pain, burning, and restless leg syndrome (RLS) symptoms. The neurologist diagnosed neuropathic pain, RLS, obesity, carpal tunnel syndrome, low back pain, and tremor. She planned to do B12 and ferritin levels, and she recommended an EMG/NCV of both upper and lower extremities. The neurologist noted a normal neurological examination. Despite the normal neurological examination, the neurologist failed to keep adequate documentation to establish her multiple diagnoses. She coded the visit as a level 5 new patient evaluation. The neurologist failed to document her 14-point review of systems and other required examinations to substantiate level 5 billing.
During a subsequent interview with the Medical Board, the neurologist initially stated that she had no recollection of the patient. Her medical report timed the office visit at 9:15, and the encounter ended at 11:11 a.m., approximately 2 hours. She stated that she spent 40 minutes with him. She could not account for the other time. She stated that “the rest was not me” and that she did not know what the time was “in between.” The patient claimed that she asked him only to stand and to try to stand on his heels and to squeeze her fingers. When asked why she ordered the EMG, she answered, “For neuropathy versus radiculopathy versus carpal tunnel syndrome could have CDIP.” She did not know what a Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) report was.
The Medical Board of California judged that the neurologist’s conduct departed from the standard of care because she failed to keep accurate, timely, complete medical records to support her diagnoses, coded and billed for level 5 services not substantiated in her records, and was not aware of CURES reports and did not utilize it in her practice.
For this case and others, the Medical Board of California placed the neurologist on probation and ordered the neurologist to complete a medical record keeping course, a professionalism program (ethics course), an education course (at least 40 hours per year for each year of probation), and a clinical training program equivalent to the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program offered at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. The neurologist was assigned a practice monitor and was prohibited from supervising physician assistants and advanced practice nurses.
State: California
Date: January 2018
Specialty: Neurology
Symptom: Extremity Pain, Back Pain, Joint Pain, Psychiatric Symptoms
Diagnosis: Neurological Disease
Medical Error: Lack of proper documentation, Procedural error
Significant Outcome: N/A
Case Rating: 1
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
California – Interventional Radiology – Pain And Cold Foot After Arteriogram, Angioplasty, And Atherectomy
On 6/26/2015, a patient presented to an interventional radiologist’s outpatient clinic for a left lower extremity arteriogram and intervention for a thrombosed left lower extremity bypass graft, originally placed in 2007. The patient had an extensive medical history including a renal transplant, diabetes, right leg amputation, and multiple revascularization procedures, including prior thrombectomies of the left lower extremity graft.
The patient reportedly had pain both at rest and with activity, and had a cold left leg prior to and immediately before the procedure. In order to improve blood flow in the patient’s left leg, the interventional radiologist performed an arteriogram, angioplasty, tPA administration, atherectomy, and stent placement within the left lower extremity, including an attempt to revascularize the native superficial femoral artery.
Images show an initially thrombosed femoral artery to popliteal bypass graft and deep femoral artery. Further images show balloons inflated in various parts of the graft and native arteries. Final images show flow through a patent common femoral artery (CFA), bypass graft, and peroneal and anterior tibial arteries. The deep femoral artery appeared occluded shortly beyond its origin.
After the procedure, a nurse noted the patient’s foot was cold. The interventional radiologist also assessed the patient post-procedure and found the foot to be cold, both two (2) and four (4) hours post-procedure. The interventional radiologist recommended to the patient that she travel to the emergency department of a university hospital.
The patient was then driven by her companion two hours to the emergency department, where she was assessed by an ED physician and a vascular surgeon. She was taken to the operating room where she underwent surgery, which included a left leg above-the-knee amputation and a deep femoral artery thrombectomy.
The Board stated that the standard of care for an interventional radiologist when performing an intervention is to recognize complications and to take appropriate steps to manage them. Although the patient’s foot was reportedly cold and painful immediately post-procedure, it can take some time for the foot to warm, and pain could be caused by reperfusion. However, it is clear that two to four hours after the procedure, the interventional radiologist recognized that the patient’s leg had not improved and was worsening and that further care was needed. Thus, when it became clear to the interventional radiologist that the foot was not improving, he recommended that the patient seek more treatment.
The records of the interventional radiologist’s care of the patient were inadequate in that they do not state whether the patient’s clinical status post-procedure was worse than before the procedure. A post-procedure pulse examination was lacking which would have helped in determining the patient’s clinical status.
The patient reported to the ED physician that the pain began after the procedure and steadily worsened, which indicates that the patient rethrombosed her bypass graft and deep femoral artery (source of collateral flow) immediately. This event should have been recognized by the interventional radiologist.
However, the interventional radiologist’s documentation for this patient was inadequate and sparse. The medical records lacked documentation of the change in the patient’s status post-procedure, the discussion with the patient leading up to the discharge from his center, and the patient’s disposition. The interventional radiologist discharged the patient to her own care directly from his clinic instead of calling Emergency Medical Services (EMS), which indicates that the interventional radiologist failed to recognize the gravity of what was occurring.
His conduct did not ensure that the patient would be attended continuously until definitive treatment was given. The patient arrived at the emergency department at approximately 8:00 p.m., two hours after the patient was discharged from the interventional radiologist’s clinic.
Had the process of discharge and transfer occurred earlier, it is possible that the outcome could have been different. The interventional radiologist failed to communicate with the ED physician ahead of the patient’s arrival. The interventional radiologist gave the patient a CD of the procedure, a copy of the medical records, and his phone number, as an attempt of communicating with the emergency department personnel regarding the events that occurred at the interventional radiologist’s clinic.
However, the interventional radiologist failed to telephone the ED physicians at the emergency department to give a verbal report on the patient and to provide a more informative transition and preparation for continued care. In expecting the practitioners at the emergency department to call the interventional radiologist to gain more information, the interventional radiologist improperly sought to shift his responsibility to provide needed information about the patient to the staff at the emergency department.
The interventional radiologist failed to maintain documentation regarding the change in the patient’s status post-procedure, the discussion leading up to the discharge from his center, and the patient’s disposition. He stated that he was not sure if he documented these events, and if he did, he sent them with the patient. Documentation sent with the patient has since been lost. Documentation of a change in the patient’s clinical status was lacking. The medical records lacked documentation of what was discussed regarding the patient’s disposition and where she was told to go for further care.
The Board judged the interventional radiologist’s conduct to have fallen below the standard of care for the following reasons:
1) The interventional radiologist failed to offer to transport the patient by ambulance or EMS services to ensure that she would be attended continuously until definitive treatment was given. His failure to do so indicates that he failed to understand the gravity of the situation which was occurring.
2) The interventional radiologist failed to adequately communicate with the emergency department, to call ahead of time to inform them that the patient was in transit, and to inform them of the circumstances.
3) The interventional radiologist failed to maintain adequate and accurate records.
The Board issued a public reprimand.
State: California
Date: December 2017
Specialty: Interventional Radiology, Vascular Surgery
Symptom: Extremity Pain
Diagnosis: Acute Ischemic Limb, Post-operative/Operative Complication
Medical Error: Diagnostic error, Delay in proper treatment, Underestimation of likelihood or severity, Failure of communication with other providers, Lack of proper documentation
Significant Outcome: Permanent Loss Of Functional Status Or Organ
Case Rating: 3
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
Florida – Internal Medicine – Worsening Chronic Kidney Disease, Abnormal Stress Test, And Cardiac Symptoms
From 2009 until 2014, an internist served as a patient’s primary care physician.
In 2009, the internist referred the patient to Cardiologist A for a cardiology evaluation. The results of the 2009 cardiology evaluation revealed that the patient’s electrocardiogram and stress test were both abnormal. At this time Cardiologist A recommended that the internist increase the patient’s medication as needed in order to get the patient’s LDL cholesterol below seventy.
The patient was evaluated by Cardiologist A again in June 2010. The June 2010 cardiac evaluation revealed that the patient had shortness of breath on exertion at times, possibly related to hypertension and subclinical congestive heart failure.
On 7/17/2013, the patient underwent lab work, the results which showed that his glomerular filtration rate (“GFR”) was thirty-four. The internist stated the patient’s chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) as stage III/IV.
The patient’s next set of lab work was conducted on 11/18/2013, the results of which showed that his GFR was twenty-two. The internist wrote in a progress note that the patient’s CKD was stage III/IV.
The patient had lab work done again on 1/13/2014, the results of which showed that his GFR was twenty-six. In a progress noted created on 1/13/2014, the internist wrote that the patient’s CKD was now at stage IV.
Despite the dramatic decline in the patient’s GFR levels indicative of worsening CKD, the internist did not refer the patient to a nephrologist.
On 1/13/2014, the patient presented to the internist complaining of left arm pain, numbness radiating to both hands, and shortness of breath. The internist ordered an EKG, chest x-ray, and lab work. The internist’s assessment of the patient at this time was dyspnea on exertion, questionable coronary artery disease, questionable pulmonary issue, and questionable anxiety.
The internist had the patient return to the office on 1/14/2014 for an echocardiogram. After the echocardiogram, the internist referred the patient to Cardiologist B for a consult.
The patient could not obtain an appointment with Cardiologist B until 2/3/2014.
The internist ordered that a stress test be conducted prior to the patient’s visit to Cardiologist B, and advised that the patient bring the results of the stress test to his appointment with Cardiologist B. The stress test was performed on 1/23/2014, and the results were abnormal.
The Board judged the internist’s conduct to be below the minimum standard of competence given that the internist failed to adequately evaluate the patient’s symptoms and recognize the patient’s worsening coronary artery disease, development of congestive heart failure, and worsening of chronic kidney disease. The internist should have referred the patient to a nephrologist for further evaluation upon seeing a dramatic decline in the patient’s GFR levels. When the patient, with a known history of cardiac disease, presented with cardiac symptoms, the internist should have should have sent the patient to an emergency department for treatment.
The Board ordered that the internist pay a fine of $2,000 imposed against his license. The Board also ordered that the internist pay reimbursement costs of a minimum of $5,756.36 and not to exceed $7,756.36. The internist was ordered to complete five hours of continuing medical education in the treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease and five hours of continuing medical education in the treatment of patients with chronic heart disease.
State: Florida
Date: December 2017
Specialty: Internal Medicine
Symptom: Extremity Pain, Numbness, Shortness of Breath
Diagnosis: Renal Disease, Cardiovascular Disease
Medical Error: Referral failure to hospital or specialist
Significant Outcome: N/A
Case Rating: 2
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
Florida – Internal Medicine – Patient With Worsening Chronic Kidney Disease Presents With Arm Pain, Numbness, And Shortness Of Breath
From 2009 until 2014, an internist served as the patient’s primary care physician.
In 2009, the internist referred the patient to Cardiologist A for a cardiology evaluation. The results of the 2009 cardiology evaluation revealed that the patient’s electrocardiogram and stress test were both abnormal.
At this time, Cardiologist A recommended that the internist increase the patient’s medication as needed in order to get the patient’s cholesterol to below seventy.
The patient was evaluated by Cardiologist A again in June 2010.
The June 2010 cardiac evaluation revealed that the patient had shortness of breath on exertion at times, possibly related to hypertension and subclinical congestive heart failure.
On 7/17/2013, the patient underwent lab work, the results which showed that his glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was thirty-four. The internist staged the patient’s chronic kidney disease (CKD) at a stage III/IV.
The patient’s next set of lab work was conducted on 11/18/2013, the results of which showed that his GFR was twenty-two. The internist wrote in a progress note that the patient’s CKD was a stage III/IV.
On 1/13/2014, the patient had lab work done again, the results which showed that his GFR was twenty-six. In his progress note he wrote that the patient’s CKD was now a stage IV.
Despite a dramatic decline in the patient’s GFR levels indicative of worsening CKD, the internist did not refer the patient to a nephrologist.
On 1/13/2014, the patient presented to the internist complaining of left arm pain, numbness radiating to both hands, and shortness of breath. The internist ordered an EKG, chest x-ray, and lab work. His assessment of the patient at this time was dyspnea on exertion, questionable coronary artery disease, questionable pulmonary disease, and questionable anxiety.
On 1/14/2014, the patient returned to the office for an echocardiogram. After the echocardiogram, the internist referred the patient to Cardiologist B for a consult. The patient could not obtain an appointment with Cardiologist B until 2/3/2014.
The internist ordered that a stress test be conducted prior to the patient’s visit with Cardiologist B, and advised that the patient bring the results of the stress test to his appointment with Cardiologist B.
On 1/23/2014, the stress test was performed and the results were abnormal.
The Medical Board of Florida judged that the internist failed to adequately evaluate the patient’s symptoms and recognize the patient’s worsening coronary artery disease, development of congestive heart failure, and worsening chronic kidney disease. He failed to refer the patient to a nephrologist for further evaluation upon seeing a dramatic decline in the patient’s GFR levels. He also failed to send the patient to the emergency department for treatment when the patient presented to him with exhibiting cardiac symptoms and had a known history of heart disease.
The Medical Board of Florida issued a letter of concern against the internist’s license. The Medical Board of Florida ordered that the internist pay a fine of $2,500 against his license and pay reimbursement costs for the case at a minimum of $5,756.36 and not to exceed $7,756.36. The Medical Board of Florida also ordered that the internist complete five hours of continuing medical education in the treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease and chronic heart disease.
State: Florida
Date: December 2017
Specialty: Internal Medicine
Symptom: Extremity Pain, Numbness, Shortness of Breath
Diagnosis: Heart Failure, Cardiovascular Disease, Renal Disease
Medical Error: Failure to examine or evaluate patient properly, Referral failure to hospital or specialist
Significant Outcome: N/A
Case Rating: 2
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
Florida – Family Medicine – Recurrent Chest Pain Diagnosed As Esophageal Spasm
On 8/27/2012 a 47-year-old female presented with complaints of hypertension, possible hyperlipidemia, and pain in her foot. A family practitioner assessed the patient and diagnosed her with poor control of her hypertension and reinforced medical advice for the patient to increase her lisinopril. Additionally, the family practitioner waited for the results of the previous laboratory work and recommended conservative management and stretching for the foot and ankle.
On 4/1/2013, the patient again presented to the family practitioner to address difficulties with concurrent chest pain. The patient stated the chest pains were very severe and “stopped her in her tracks at times.” The patient stated that she felt she was having a heart attack, although she reportedly realized that that was not the case. The family practitioner deemed the chest pain was likely an esophageal spasm, for which he prescribed the patient Librax (chlordiazepoxide/clidinium) and recommended that she see a gastroenterologist for an endoscopy if the medication failed to provide relief. The family practitioner also assessed the patient for hypertension and instructed the patient to stop taking hydrochlorothiazide. The family practitioner provided the patient with a trial of Dyrenium (triamterene).
On 4/12/2013, the patient complained of chest pain and suffered a cardiac arrest. Upon EMS arrival, the patient was unstable and unresponsive. The patient was transported to a hospital where she was later pronounced deceased.
The Board judged the family practitioners conduct to be below the minimal standard of competence given that he failed to conduct an adequate history, which included a risk factor assessment for a patient complaining of chest pain, to order or perform an EKG on a patient complaining of chest pain, and send a patient complaining of chest pain to an emergency room or an expedited outpatient facility for a chest pain evaluation.
The Board ordered that the family practitioner pay a fine of $5,000 against his license and pay reimbursement costs for a minimum of $2,122.00 and not to exceed $4,122.00. The Board also ordered that the family practitioner complete ten hours of continuing medical education in diagnosis in cardiology and five hours of continuing medical education in “Risk Management.”
State: Florida
Date: November 2017
Specialty: Family Medicine
Symptom: Chest Pain, Extremity Pain
Diagnosis: Cardiovascular Disease
Medical Error: Diagnostic error, Failure to examine or evaluate patient properly, Failure to order appropriate diagnostic test, Referral failure to hospital or specialist
Significant Outcome: Death
Case Rating: 3
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
Florida – Neurosurgery – Laminotomy And Foraminotomy Performed At One Level Lower Than Intended
On 12/9/2015, a patient presented to a neurosurgeon at the Laser Spine Institute with complaints of lower back pain and bilateral lower leg pain.
The neurosurgeon reviewed a previous MRI result for the patient which indicated that the patient had a lumbarized sacrum, foraminal stenosis at L5-S1 bilaterally, and L4-5 facet hypertrophy.
The neurosurgeon also reviewed previous nerve root block results, which indicated 20% relief at L5 and 80% relief when performed at L4-5.
The neurosurgeon recommended that the patient undergo a right laminotomy and foraminotomy at the L4-5 level.
On 12/11/2015, the patient returned for the recommended procedure. The neurosurgeon performed a right laminotomy and foraminotomy on the patient at what he thought was the L4-5 previously identified at the 12/9/2015 visit.
The neurosurgeon relied on intraoperative imaging to find the operative level.
Due to the patient’s vertebral anatomy, on 12/11/2015, the neurosurgeon actually performed the procedure one level below the level he previously identified on the 12/9/2015 visit. The level the neurosurgeon performed the procedure was the incorrect site and was not the site the neurosurgeon identified as the operative level at the 12/9/2015 visit.
On 2/24/2016, the neurosurgeon performed a second right laminotomy and foraminotomy on the patient, this time at the correct site, which was one level above the surgery he performed on 12/11/2015, and the same level he identified at the 12/9/2015 visit.
It was requested that the Board order one or more of the following penalties for the neurosurgeon: permanent revocation or suspension of his license, restriction of practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, probation, corrective action, payment of fees, remedial education, and/or any other relief that the Board deemed appropriate.
State: Florida
Date: July 2017
Specialty: Neurosurgery, Orthopedic Surgery
Symptom: Back Pain, Extremity Pain
Diagnosis: Spinal Injury Or Disorder
Medical Error: Wrong site procedure
Significant Outcome: N/A
Case Rating: 2
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
California – Radiology – Epidural Injection With Subsequent Lower Extremity Pain And Sensory And Motor Function Loss
On 1/15/2010, a 61-year-old female underwent an epidural injection. Following the procedure, she complained of sharp pain in the lower extremities, followed by sensory and motor function loss below the T10 and T11 level. The patient was transferred by ambulance to the emergency department.
A thoracic and lumbar MRI was performed and interpreted by a radiologist. The final report for the lumbar spine states “Mild desiccation and degenerative changes of the disc but no disc bulge or herniation is noted.” His final report of the thoracic spine demonstrates “normal MRI of the thoracic spine…A repeat study of the thoracolumbar spine is recommended without contrast infusion in both projections to better evaluate this area as this is on the edge of the study on the current images both lumbar and thoracic is not well delineated.” Although the images were suboptimal, the epidural hematoma of the lower thoracic spine was evident in the axial images.
On 1/19/2010, a repeat MRI was performed. The radiologist interpreted the MRI stating there is “abnormal signal focus demonstrated in the spinal canal from approximately the T10-T11 disc space inferiorly through the T12-L1 disc space located mostly in the posterior and posterolateral aspect of the spinal canal displacing the cords slightly anteriorly and causing a slight mass effect on the cord and subarachnoid sac. This is consistent with a subdural or epidural hematoma.”
The Board judged the radiologist’s conduct as having fallen below the standard of care given failure to observe and document all pertinent findings on diagnostic imaging studies, failure to discuss findings requiring urgent treatment with the referring physician, failure to diagnose the abnormality found on MRI, and failure to document his discussion with the referring physician regarding the abnormality on MRI.
A public reprimand was issued against the radiologist.
State: California
Date: June 2017
Specialty: Radiology, Emergency Medicine
Symptom: Extremity Pain, Numbness, Weakness/Fatigue
Diagnosis: Spinal Injury Or Disorder
Medical Error: False negative, Failure of communication with other providers, Lack of proper documentation
Significant Outcome: N/A
Case Rating: 3
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
Florida – Pain Management – Contrast And Steroid Injected Into The Intrathecal Space Instead Of The Epidural Space
Between February 2006 and September 2012, a patient presented to a pain specialist with complaints of chronic low back pain.
On one or more occasions between February 2006 and September 2012, the pain specialist assessed the patient with, among other things, low back pain, lumbago, osteoarthritis, lumbar failed back surgery syndrome, lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbar muscle spasms.
On 9/28/2012, the patient presented to the pain specialist in order for him to perform a lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection with catheter and fluoroscopy. Epidural administration is a medical route of administration in which a drug or contrast agent is injected into the epidural space of the spinal cord.
During the procedure, the pain specialist inserted the tip of the catheter through the patient’s epidural space and into the patient’s intrathecal space. Intrathecal administration is a medical route of administration in which a drug or contrast agent is injected into the spinal canal, or into the subarachnoid space so that it reaches the cerebrospinal fluid.
During the procedure, the pain specialist injected contrast and injectate into the patient’s intrathecal space instead of the patient’s epidural space.
The pain specialist did not obtain an intra-injection lateral view epidurogram to confirm the location of the catheter tip and/or the dispersal pattern of the contrast and injectate.
The pain specialist did not obtain a post-injection lateral view epidurogram to confirm the location of the catheter tip and/or the dispersal pattern of the contrast and injectate.
The pain specialist did not recognize that he had performed an intrathecal injection instead of an epidural injection.
After the procedure, the patient complained of bilateral hip and leg pain, numbness, and paralysis.
The patient was transferred to a hospital where she was ultimately diagnosed with conus medullaris syndrome.
It was requested that the Medical Board of Florida order one or more of the following penalties for the pain specialist: permanent revocation or suspension of his license, restriction of practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, probation, corrective action, payment of fees, remedial education, and/or any other relief that the Medical Board of Florida deemed appropriate.
State: Florida
Date: June 2017
Specialty: Pain Management, Anesthesiology
Symptom: Back Pain, Numbness, Extremity Pain, Pelvic/Groin Pain, Weakness/Fatigue
Diagnosis: Post-operative/Operative Complication, Spinal Injury Or Disorder
Medical Error: Wrong site procedure, Lack of proper documentation, Procedural error
Significant Outcome: Permanent Loss Of Functional Status Or Organ
Case Rating: 3
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
New York – Internal Medicine – Pain Associated With PICC Line
From 7/8/2008 to August 2008, Physician A treated a 46-year-old woman with a history of Parkinson’s disease diagnosed in May 2008. At her initial visit, she reported that in early May 2008, she had a tick bite with subsequent bull’s eye rash. She had been treated with antibiotics and intramuscular injections for approximately seven weeks.
Physician A ordered a PICC line for the administration of parenteral antibiotics, which was placed on 7/17/2008. One week later, the patient complained of pain in her neck and shoulder. On 7/31/2008, the patient reported extreme pain. The patient had a venous Doppler study, which indicated deep vein thrombosis. The patient was admitted to the hospital where the PICC line was removed, and the patient was placed on anticoagulant therapy.
The Board judged Physician A’s conduct as having fallen below the minimum level of competence given failure to take an appropriate history, failed to perform a physical exam, failure to construct a differential diagnosis, and failure to evaluate her pain in a timely fashion.
State: New York
Date: April 2017
Specialty: Internal Medicine, Family Medicine
Symptom: Extremity Pain, Head/Neck Pain
Diagnosis: Deep Vein Thrombosis/Intracardiac Thrombus
Medical Error: Diagnostic error
Significant Outcome: N/A
Case Rating: 1
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF
Kansas – Physician Assistant – Lovenox Prescribed For DVT In A Patient With A History Of GI Bleeding
On 11/19/2015, a patient presented to a family care clinic with complaints of swelling and pain in the right lower extremity (“RLE”).
The patient was seen by the APRN who documented the patient’s history of GI bleeding, noting the patient had experienced a RLE deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”) and pulmonary embolism (“PE”) on October 2015, that had been treated with an IVC filter in a medical center.
The APRN further documented in the patient’s chart, “No [sic] on anticoagulants due to GI Bleed,” and “Recent [history] GI bleed.”
The patient was referred to cardiology for the management of his anticoagulation. He was to follow up on the morning of 11/20/2015 to have a complete blood count (“CBC”) drawn.
On 11/20/2015, the patient presented to a physician assistant with right leg and foot swelling with new onset pain rated a 1/10. The physician assistant did not document a patient history and did not review the APRN’s notes from 11/19/2015. The physician assistant diagnosed the patient with DVT of the right popliteal vein and mild anemia. The physician assistant improperly prescribed Lovenox 60 mg SQ twice a day for one week with a follow-up to confirm dissolution of the clot.
On 11/23/2015, the patient awoke during the night with chest pain and was transported via ambulance to the emergency department where it was determined the patient had a GI bleed. The patient’s hemoglobin (“HGB”) dropped abnormally low to 7.7, and his hematocrit (“HCT”) was also abnormally low at 27.4%.
The physician assistant’s response, received by the Board on 3/29/2016, noted, “There was no indication in the note from the previous day, nor in any clinic note that he was not a candidate for anticoagulation therapy.” However, the original notes received by the Board on 10/6/2016 from the hospital indicated that the patient had a history of GI bleed and no anticoagulants should have been prescribed.
The Board judged the physician assistant’s conduct to be below the minimum standard of competence given his inappropriate prescribing of Lovenox.
For this allegation and others, the Board ordered the physician assistant to contact The Center for Personalized Education for Physicians, (“CPEP”) for a competence assessment, follow all recommendations of the CPEP assessment, and complete a medical record keeping seminar.
State: Kansas
Date: April 2017
Specialty: Physician Assistant, Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine
Symptom: Blood in Stool, Extremity Pain, Swelling
Diagnosis: Drug Overdose, Side Effects, or Withdrawal, Deep Vein Thrombosis/Intracardiac Thrombus, Pulmonary Embolism
Medical Error: Improper medication management, Lack of proper documentation
Significant Outcome: N/A
Case Rating: 2
Link to Original Case File: Download PDF