The Law Offices of Barry G. Doyle, P.C.

Chicago Illinois Accident Lawyers

 CALL (312) 263-1080

Lemont Nursing & Rehab cited for failing to notify doctor of abnormal lab results

By

IDPH has cited and fined Lemont Nursing & Rehabilitation Center nursing home in Lemont due to the failure of the staff to notify the resident’s doctor of abnormal lab results.

One of the basic facts of care in a nursing home is that there are not doctors on hand on a 24-7 basis.  However, members of the nursing staff are, and one of their functions is to serve as “the eyes and ears of the doctor” when the doctor is not actually in the nursing home.  Nurses are required to notify the doctor of significant events in the care of the resident, such as the occurrence of a fall, the development or a bed sore or its decline, abnormal lab or test results, and of any changes in the condition of a resident.

One thing that requires physician notification is the onset of signs and symptoms of infection.  Nurses are not required to be able to determine exactly what the infection is or how to treat the infection, but they do need to know when a resident is showing signs and symptoms of infection.  When a resident is showing signs and symptoms of an infection, the nurse is required to notify the doctor and the doctor can use that information to decide whether to issue orders for treatment over the phone, come into the nursing home to examine and treat the resident, or to have the resident sent to the emergency room.

The use of an indwelling catheter is something that predisposes nursing home residents to develop urinary tract infections.  There are a number of reasons for this, and as a general proposition, nurses working in a nursing home setting are well-schooled on what the signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection are.  These might include: lethargy, confusion or other changes in mental status; fever; back or flank pain; burning while urinating; and changes in the color or appearance of the urine itself such as it becoming cloudy or darker, having pus or blood in it, or having a foul odor.  When those signs and symptoms occur, then physician notification is required.

The resident at issue here had an indwelling catheter.  He began to show increased confusion and the urine draining from catheter was cloudy.  These are signs of a urinary tract infection.  The physician was notified and he ordered a urinalysis and urine culture to determine whether the resident was suffering from a urinary tract infection and if so, what antibiotics would be most effective against it.

The resident also had a regularly scheduled Complete Blood Count (CBC) done the next day.  When the results of that came back that afternoon it showed that the white blood cell count was significantly elevated.  An elevated white blood cell count is an indicator that there is an infection present.  This abnormal lab result should have been reported to the doctor.  However, it was not.  In the context of this resident’s reported confusion and cloudy urine, the failure of the nursing staff to notify the doctor of the abnormal lab results deprived the doctor of a critical piece of information in medical decision-making.

Three days after the CBC test results came back, the results of the urinalysis came back.  These showed that the resident did in fact have a urinary tract infection.  The doctor was properly notified and started the resident on an antibiotic.  However, the following day the resident had to be sent to the hospital due to decreased urine output.  The resident was admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of elevated white blood cell count and sepsis.  After the family had the resident placed on comfort care only, the resident died a week later.

Here, there was a simple failure to follow standard nursing practices.  The doctor was notified when there was a change in the resident’s condition initially, resulting in the urinalysis being ordered.  The doctor was also notified when the results of that test came back with abnormal findings.  However, the staff failed to notify the doctor of the blood test showing the elevated white blood cell count.  This piece of information would likely have led to early administration of antibiotics and may have yielded a different outcome, as delay in the initiation on effective antibiotics increases ill-effects of infections.

One of our basic beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Untreated infection leads to resident death at Elevate Care South Holland

Grove of Elmhurst resident dies due to delay in physician notification

Aperion Care of Wilmington resident suffers ruptured colon due to fecal impaction

Resident at Arcadia Care in Danville dies due to improperly treated urinary tract infection

 

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

 

Failure to obtain treatment orders leads to infection of surgical wound at Loft of Canton

By

IDPH has cited and fined the Loft Rehab & Nursing of Canton nursing home after a resident there developed a surgical wound infection due to the failure of the staff to obtain orders for the care of the wound.

Many persons who undergo surgery are sent to nursing homes for post-operative rehabilitation.  Often part of the care is actual rehabilitation – therapy that is needed to get them “back on their feet” so that they can go home.  However, a crucial part of the care that residents receive is directed toward making sure that residents receive necessary medications and lab work, that the surgical incisions are healing and free of signs of infection, and other aspects of care that are directed to making sure that nothing goes awry.

When residents are admitted to the nursing home from a hospital, there are transfer orders that go with the resident.  Typically these will include things like the medications the resident is supposed to receive, treatments that the resident requires, labs that must be completed, and so forth.  This assures continuity of care.  When the resident is being admitted the nurse at the nursing home is supposed to review the orders with a nurse from the transferring hospital.

Additionally, when the resident is admitted to the nursing home, they undergo a number of assessments, one of which is a head-to-toe skin inspection.  One of the reasons for the skin inspection is to check for the existence and condition of any bed sores or pressure ulcers.  However, in the context of a post-surgical admission, this inspection is to check to see if there are signs and symptoms of infection to any of the wounds and to make sure that there are appropriate orders for care of the surgical wounds.

The resident at issue here was initially admitted to the nursing home after undergoing the removal of her parotid glands and a resection of her neck due to malignancy.  However, she developed a post-surgical infection and had to be readmitted to the hospital.

When she returned to the nursing home, there were four surgical wounds present, including one which under her left breast but which was recorded in the chart as being a “chest” wound.    That “chest” wound included a drain, staples, and a surgical dressing.  However, there were no orders for the care of that surgical wound, and no one called the doctor or the hospital get orders for care.

As a result, the resident was in the nursing home for a week with no care being provided for the wound under her left breast.  This continued until the surgical wound developed an odor, was red and inflamed, and was draining yellow and green fluid.  The resident was also lethargic, said that she was not feeling good and having nausea.  These are all signs of infection.  The resident was brought to the hospital where the dressings were changed and the resident was placed on antibiotics.  The surgeon also ordered a culture of the wound.  When the cultures were completed, they showed that the wound to the breast as well as wound on her clavicle were infected with MRSA.  The resident was sent back to the hospital for management of the new wound infections.

There were a number of shortcomings in the care that this resident received:

  • It is unclear from the citation whether the “chest” wound recorded on the admitting assessment referred to the clavicle wound or breast wound.  If the breast wound was missed all together, that is a complete failure on the skin inspection;
  • There were very clearly no orders for the breast wound.  When the skin inspection revealed that there was a breast wound for which there were no treatment orders, it was incumbent upon the nursing home staff to contact the doctor for treatment orders, just as physician notification is required when a resident develops a bed sore;
  • After the resident was admitted, there were multiple shifts where no one seemed to recognize that there were no orders for the treatment of the breast wound.  Multiple opportunities missed.
  • Typically, the condition of a post-operative wound is recorded on a per shift basis.  This is because a surgical wound infection is a serious matter which needs to be addressed promptly.  The condition of the dressing when the nurses first noted the odor was described as being filthy, which means that there had likely been multiple shifts where either no one paid any attention to the breast wound or to the fact the dressing had not been changed.

In short, there were several levels of failure at the nursing home in the care of this resident, all of which led to a serious infection of the surgical wound.  The resident had been admitted to the hospital for care for this, but this will likely require extensive use of antibiotics and likely surgical excision of the infected tissues.  This is a situation which was made worse, not better by the care that this resident received.

One of our core beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Heartland of Galesburg resident dies due to untreated urinary tract infection

Rushville Nursing & Rehab resident suffers untreated surgical wound infection

Failure to notify physician leads to resident death at Alden Estates of Barrington

 

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Grove of Elmhurst resident dies due to delay in physician notification

By

IDPH has cited and fined the Grove of Elmhurst nursing home after a resident there died due to a 30-hours delay in notifying the resident’s physician about a fever exceeding 104 degrees.

One of the basic truisms of care in a nursing home setting is that doctors are not there on a 24/7 basis.  Because of this, nurses must be the “eyes and ears” of the doctors and let them know when there has been a change in the condition of a resident.  The nurse does not need to know what the change represents (though they often have a good idea) or how to treat it.  Those things are the role of the doctor.  The nurse simply needs to be able to identify the change in condition, notify the resident’s physician, and give the doctor enough good information about what is happening to allow good decision-making.  Once the doctor is informed of the problem, then the doctor must decide to come to the nursing home, issue orders over the phone, or order the resident transferred to the hospital.

The resident at issue had been admitted to the nursing home with a number of medical problem, including: multiple rib fractures, chronic respiratory failure, encephalopathy, a tracheostomy, and anoxic brain damage.  He was in a comatose state and dependent on staff for care.  At the time of admission, he had been running low-grade fevers (98-101), so the attending doctor requested consultations with an infectious disease physician who assigned a nurse practitioner to the patient.

On the morning of the fourth day after admission, the resident’s temperature rose to 104.5 degree.  This represented a change in condition for the resident, and should have triggered notification of the resident’s physician or the infectious disease nurse practitioner.  The resident’s temperature was taken 7 times during the course of that day, yielding temperatures of 102 degree or higher 5 times.   Neither the resident’s physician or the infectious disease nurse practitioner were notified of the rising temperatures.

The following day, the resident’s temperature was taken at 6:30 a.m. and was 102 degrees, but dropped down to 99.9 at 8:53 a.m. However, it climbed back to 104.5 degree by 10:57.  After the temperature climbed back up over 104 degrees, the staff called the doctor but he was not available so they had him paged.  No effort was made to reach the infectious disease nurse practitioner.

At 12:55 p.m., the respiratory therapist was treating the resident and noted a heart rate of 120-130 after suctioning.  The nurse assessed the resident and found that the resident had a temperature of 101.4 and a heart rate of 118.  Fevers and an elevated heart rate are signs of sepsis.  The primary care physician was paged again, although no effort was made to reach the infectious disease nurse practitioner.

The attending physician was paged again at 3 pm and this time the doctor was reached.  He was informed of the resident’s condition and ordered the resident be sent to the emergency room.  The staff first called a private ambulance service and was told that it would be 90 minutes for an ambulance to arrive.  The nurse went to assess the resident again and noted shallow breathing.  The nurse and the respiratory therapist began to do CPR using an ambu-bag.  911 was called, and the paramedics arrived 8 minutes later.  On arrival the resident had no pulse and was in respiratory arrest.  They were able to regain a pulse twice  in their resuscitative efforts, but the resident died less than an hour after the paramedics arrived.  The apparent cause of death was pneumonia – a condition which could have been better addressed in a hospital setting.

There were a number of shortcomings in the care that this resident received:

  • When the resident initially developed temperatures in excess of 104 degrees, no one was notified of the development of that high a fever.  It represented a change in condition and a real threat to the health and well-being of the resident.
  • There was no effort to notify the infectious disease nurse practitioner.  The fever and rapid heart rate were signs of sepsis and seeing as this specialist was brought in to help manage this aspect of the resident’s care, notifying the nurse practitioner was a reasonable option when the 104 degree fever developed and/or the attending could not be reached.
  • There was inadequate follow up when the attending physician could not be reached.  Once a doctor is paged and is not responding, additional follow-up efforts are required to actually reach the doctor to get his guidance.
  • Finally, when a doctor cannot be reached, the facility medical director should be contacted to obtain orders if necessary.  It is simply not acceptable to not get some medical direction when the resident’s situation calls for it.

The net result of all of this is that there was a 30 hour delay in getting the instructions that were required when the resident first developed the 104 degree fever.  This was a medically complex, medically fragile individual for whom timely care was required.  When a resident suffers from an infection like pneumonia, delays in receiving care can contribute to the development of complications like sepsis which can in turn feed other complications.

One of our basic beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Landmark of Richton Park resident dies due to mishandling of tracheostomy tube

Lemont Nursing & Rehab staff fails to notify doctor of abnormal labs

Feeding tube error at Aperion of Westchester

Lack of wound monitoring leads to infection at Regency Care of Morris

Untreated infection leads to resident death at Elevate Care South Holland

Heartland of Moline resident develops pneumonia due to failure to follow diet orders

 

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

 

Resident suffers flesh-eating disease from untreated skin tear at Regency of Sterling

By

IDPH has cited and fined Regency of Sterling nursing home after a resident underwent surgery for a infected skin tear which had not been treated while at the nursing home.

One basic fact of life is that as we age, our skin gets thinner and more susceptible to injury.  This is why bed sore prevention is a focus of care in nursing homes.  With senior citizens, one form of injury to the skin that they are susceptible to skin tears.  A skin tear is a traumatic injury to the skin which results in the separation of the skin, frequently with peeling back of the skin.

Most often skin tears can be treated relatively easily by bringing the edges of the skin together and using steri-strips and dressings to promote healing of the wound.  However, as with any wound, the occurrence of a skin tear is something that requires physician notification and ongoing monitoring for healing and signs and symptoms of infection is absolutely required.  Intact skin is the most effective barrier to having infecting organisms enter the body, and having a skin tear is a breach of the integrity of the skin.

The resident at issue sustained a skin tear to her left lower outer leg while being assisted into bed by staff.   The resident had been recognized as being at risk for skin tears, and care should have been taken by the staff to avoid injury to the skin in transferring the resident to bed.

Once a skin tear occurs, the staff is then required to care for it properly and monitor for signs and symptoms of infection.  This nursing home had specific policies and procedures in place which were intended to set forth what should be done in the event of a skin tear.  These required notification of the physician after a skin tear occurs to obtain treatment orders, following the wound orders, and ongoing monitoring by the wound care nurse.  In practice the wound care nurse would do rounds on patients with wounds weekly and she would be notified by the nursing staff that there was a new patient with a wound that required care.

The first problem that occurred here is that the first step – notifying the physician and obtaining treatment orders never happened.  There was no record in the chart of the physician being notified.  There were no orders from the doctor recorded in the resident chart.  The resident was not added to the roster of patients who required care from the wound care nurse.  The Treatment Administration Record did not show that there was monitoring of the wound or care being provided.  The basic steps to initiate care were simply not taken.

The facility policies called for an incident report to be completed – and it appears from the text of the citation that an incident report was in fact completed.  However, in a well-run facility, incident reports are more than paperwork which is finished.  They should be a catalyst for the administration to investigate and make sure that proper follow-up was being done.  The records of this resident seem to indicate that was not the case here.

The failures of the nursing home in this case do not end there, however.  Even with a wound care nurse on staff, this does not absolve the nurses and staff on the floor of their responsibility to serve as the “eyes and ears” of the doctors and to notify the doctor when a resident is demonstrating signs and symptoms of an infection.  Nurses do not need to know how to treat an infection, but they do have to be able to recognize the signs and symptoms, which can include: fever, redness and warmth of the affected area, blistering of the skin, drainage, and changes in mental status, among other signs.

Five days after the resident sustained the skin tear, the resident demonstrated increased confusion.  After the nurse on the floor did an assessment, she paged the on-call nurse practitioner who ordered the nurse to call 911 and have the resident sent to the emergency room.

Once the resident was brought to the emergency room, her temperature measured 102.6 degrees.  Her leg showed large fluid filled blisters from her ankle up to mid calf with tenderness and red and blue discoloration.  The infectious disease physician diagnosed her as suffering from necrotizing fasciitiis, or flesh-eating disease.  He recommended antibiotics and immediate surgical debridement.

There were a number of issues with the care that this resident received:

  • Depending on the facts and circumstances, the skin tear itself could be evidence of improper technique or potential understaffing of the nursing home;
  • There was no notification to the doctor or even the wound care nurse, which resulted in inadequate treatment and monitoring of the wound;
  • There was no follow-up to the incident report which was generated concerning the incidence of the skin tear;
  • There was inadequate care by the staff on the floor after the skin tear occurred, as there were likely signs and symptoms of the infection days before the nurse practitioner was notified;
  • There were multiple violations of facility policies and procedures.

All of these failures together led to the resident experiencing a devastating infection which will require significant medical care, all of which could and likely would have been avoided with routine follow-up care to the kind of injury that happens fairly frequently in a nursing home setting.  Simple steps not taken led to disaster.

One of our basic beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Lack of wound monitoring leads to infection at Regency Care of Morris

Fall leads to brain bleed and death at Regency Care of Sterling

Heartland of Moline resident develops pneumonia due to failure to follow diet orders

 

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

 

 

Alden Valley Ridge fails to give resident anti-seizure medications

By

IDPH has cited and fined Alden Valley Ridge Nursing Home in Bloomingdale after a resident there had to be hospitalized after experiencing grand mal seizures brought on by a failure to give prescribed anti-seizure medications.

The resident at issue had a history of epilepsy with seizures.  When he was discharged from the hospital to the nursing home, there were orders in place and prescriptions written for at least three anti-seizure medications which were to be given twice per day: dilantin, onfi, and keepra.  When the resident arrived at the facility, these medications were not on hand and had to be obtained from the pharmacy.  These medications were not obtained during the first 36 hours of the resident’s admission to the facility, and as a result, he did not receive his anti-seizure medications.

As a result, the resident experienced two grand mail seizures.  The doctor was not notified about the first, and as a result, was not sent to the hospital.  After the second occurred, the doctor was notified and the resident was sent to the hospital where labs showed that he had critically low levels of dilantin.  He was admitted to to the hospital for several days to stabilize his condition.

Before a resident is accepted for admission to a nursing home, the facility receives a package of materials about the resident which includes a medication list.  This is so that the nursing home can determine whether it can meet the care needs of the resident and if they decide to accept the resident, they can order necessary medications.  Well-run nursing homes have processes in place to ensure that routine items such as this get handled properly so that critical medications such as this are on hand when the resident arrives.  Past that, when there is a critical medication like an anti-seizure medication that is unavailable for a resident, there are processes in place to ensure that  the medication is delivered in a timely fashion.

Past that, there were events during this admission which required physician notification.  The first of these was the fact that there was a medication error because these was no medication available and that there were multiple missed doses of medication.  Had the doctor been notified, the doctor would have had the option of ordering other medications or taking other steps to help the resident maintain his dilantin levels to prevent the seizures.  The second of these was the occurrence of the first seziure.  When a resident experiences a significant event like that, it requires care regardless.  It is also an indication that the missed doses of the anti-seziure medication are having adverse effects on the health and well-being of the resident.

One of our core beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Catastrophic brain injury from medication error at Alden Town Manor

Grove of Elmhurst resident dies due to delay in physician notification

Sharon Health Care Elms in Peoria fails to give anti-seizure medications

Hillside Rehab resident suffers brain bleed due to failure to obtain lab work

Failure to obtain anti-seizure medication at Gilman Healthcare Center

Failure to notify resident physician leads to death at Alden Estate of Barrington

Failure to give anti-seizure medication at Lexington of Orland Park

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

 

Failure to notify physician leads to resident death at Alden Estates of Barrington

By

IDPH has cited and fined Alden Estates of Barrington nursing home after a resident there died from respiratory distress and an elevated potassium level after staff failed to inform the resident’s physician of pertinent information regarding the resident’s condition.

The resident at issue suffered from kidney disease and hypothyroidism (low thyroid), among other problems.  This placed him at risk for developing edema and/or an electrolyte imbalance.  There was a care plan which was specifically put into place to address this potential which included notifying the doctor of any acute changes and monitoring for fluid excess through monitoring for weight gain or the development of edema.  Of course, notifying the doctor or changes in the resident’s condition is one of the basic tasks in a nursing home setting, including significant weight gains which is generally defined in the nursing home industry (and was defined in this facility’s policies and procedures) as more than 5% in one month, 7.5% in three months, or 10% in six months.

In the care of this resident, there were multiple failures on the part of the staff to notify the resident’s doctor of important changes and information regarding the resident’s condition:

  • Over a period of 10 days, the resident’s chart showed that his weight weight increased from 208 lbs to 242 lbs.  There was an order in place for daily weights because of concern regarding fluid retention.  Several days went without any weights being taken at all because the facility’s scale was broken.  The resident’s doctor and nurse practitioner were not aware of the extent of the weight gain, and told the state surveyor that they would have sent the resident to the hospital to have fluid taken off.
  • The resident had labs taken which showed an elevated potassium level.  Elevated potassium levels can cause irregularities in the heart.  To address this, there was an order in place for a medication which was intended to drive down the potassium levels.  However, the resident refused the medication.  The staff failed to notify the doctor of the resident’s refusal.  Had the doctor been informed of the resident’s refusal, he would have ordered the resident sent to the hospital to have the elevated potassium levels treated.
  • The resident had a chest x-ray performed which showed changes consistent with pulmonary venous congestion.  The nurse practitioner explained to the surveyor that this meant fluid overload impending hypoxia due to fluids in the lungs.  The nurse on duty at the time paged the doctor with the results. However, he did not return the page and endorsed the results over the nurse coming on to the next shift to pass the results on to the doctor.  The nurse coming on at the next shift denies receiving a report about this at the change of shift report.  The net result  was that the results were never communicated to the doctor.

What was the net result all this?  On the morning of the 10th day, the resident sounded the call light and asked to be repositioned promptly.  Staff reported that he was anxious and was urging them to reposition him more quickly.  After getting him into an upright position, he slumped forward.  A code blue was called.  The rescue squad could not resuscitate the resident, and he died.  Cause of death per the death certificate included severe hyperkalemia or elevated potassium levels.

There were multiple opportunities to prevent this tragic outcome.  This resident essentially suffocated on excess fluids.  The potential for this was something that was supposed to be addressed in his care plan, by physician orders, facility policies and procedures, and basic standards of nursing practice.  One way that care in a nursing home is different from a hospital is that there is not a doctor on site on a 24/7 basis, so nurses need to serve as the eyes and ears of the doctor to notify them about the kinds of changes that were occurring in this resident.  This outcome is a sad lesson in what happens when this isn’t done properly.

One of our core beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Failure to adequately report changes in condition at Heritage Health in Carlinville

Staff at Grove of Evanston fails to notify doctor of resident’s decline

Alden Estates Huntley fails to give ordered antibiotic

Feeding tube error puts Burgess Square resident into heart failure

Hillside Rehab resident suffers brain bleed due to failure to obtain lab work

Failure to obtain treatment for congestive heart failure at Avantara of Long Grove

 

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

 

 

 

Pearl Pavilion resident dies of pulmonary embolism after not receiving blood thinners

By

IDPH has cited and fined Pearl Pavilion nursing home in Freeport after a resident there died of a pulmonary embolism brought about by the failure of the nursing home to authorize the purchase of an expensive blood thinner medication that had been ordered for him.

A pulmonary embolism is a blood clot that becomes lodged in the arteries in the lungs.  Usually these blood clots are formed in other parts of the body, typically in the legs, and then break off and travel to the lungs.  Symptoms of a pulmonary embolism include shortness of breath and chest pain.  The development of a pulmonary embolism is a medical emergency as they are often fatal without prompt medical intervention.   Use of blood thinner or anticoagulant medications is the main means of prevention of the development of blood clots that can lead to a pulmonary embolism.

The resident at issue was admitted to the nursing home from the hospital.  He had been admitted to the nursing home after being treated for a pulmonary embolism.  He suffered from a condition known as activated protein C resistenace (a condition which can increase the risk of developing blood clots which lead to a pulmonary embolism), and a history of transient ischemic attacks (“mini strokes”), and ischemic stroke (the kind of stroke caused by a blood clot to the brain).  In short, this was a resident who needed to be on blood thinner medications.

When the resident was transferred from the hospital to the nursing home, the doctor ordered that the resident receive an anticoagulant medication called apixaban twice a day.  However, when the resident arrived at the facility, the medication was not on hand.  The facility ordered the medication from the pharmacy but it was not delivered because it was expensive and required specific authorization from the nursing home.  This was never given.

Because the nursing home never authorized the purchase of the medication the doctor ordered, the resident did not receive that medication or any other anticoagulant during the three days that he was at the nursing home.

The Director of Nursing told the state surveyor that they were not aware of the issue until a week after the resident died.

When a resident arrives at a nursing home with orders to get a medication that is not on hand, there are a number of options available to the nursing home.  Completely failing to address the medical need that the medication is intended to address is not one of them.  The most obvious option is to order the medication.  The nursing home did so, but did not agree to pay for it, so they never actually obtained the medication.  Another option would be to contact the doctor an obtain an order for an alternative medication.  The nursing home never did that.  Finally, there is the option of sending the resident back to the hospital because they cannot provide the resident with the treatment he needs.

Over the course of three days, there were two separate times each day where the resident was supposed to receive his blood thinner during medication pass, but the nurse handling the medications did not give it to him.  There was nothing in the resident chart to suggest that these nurses raised the issue of the medication not being in stock with the administration of the nursing home.  There was nothing to suggest that they contacted the resident’s doctor to let him know that a patient who was at risk for developing blood clots was not getting the blood thinner that was ordered or any blood thinner at all.

On the morning that the resident died, an aide went into see the resident around 6:15 a.m.  At that time the resident was sweaty and clammy and complaining that he was having a hard time breathing.  He asked to have his blood sugar checked and it was 103.  The aide did what she was supposed to do, and reported this to the nurse.  In response, the nurse did not go to see the resident, but told the aide to get a set of vital signs.  The aide returned to the resident and took a set of vital signs.  When she went back in, he was complaining that his legs were killing him (a sign of blood clots in the legs) and was obviously having a hard time breathing.

At about 7 a.m., the resident called his sister and asked her to call the nursing home because one of his legs was hurting badly.  He was short of breath over the phone.  She called the nursing home but could not get anyone on the phone.

At approximately 7:50 a.m., the resident activated a call light to summon the nurse.  The nurse’s response was, “If he is well enough to turn his call light on, he can wait till I am done up here to see him.”  When the aide and the nurse returned to the room at 8:00 a.m., the resident continued to complain of leg pain, was having a hard time breathing and asked to be sent out to the hospital.   His blood sugar was rechecked and was over 320 even though the resident had refused breakfast.

After leaving the room, the aide asked the nurse whether the resident was going to be sent to the hospital.  In response, the nurse resulted in said, “I’m figuring that part out.”  The Director of Nursing told the state surveyor that around 7:30 a.m., she was told that the resident said that he didn’t feel good, was nauseated, and refused breakfast.  She claims to have told the nurse to make calls to the doctor and the resident’s family but these calls were never made.

At approximately 9:28 a.m., the aide was sent to the resident’s room to check his oxygen saturation level.  She found the resident lying in bed, pale and with no pulse.  She called for help and began to perform CPR.  911 was called at the paramedics arrived.  They attempted to revive the resident and brought him to the hospital where further efforts at resuscitation proved fruitless, and the resident was declared deceased.

The resident’s physician told the state surveyor that he never received a phone call from the nursing home about the resident.  Had he been called and told of the resident’s symptoms, he would have suspected a blood clot and told them to call 911 right away.  He further stated that the nursing home had the ability to send the resident directly to the emergency room.

There are at least three levels of failures that resulted in this nursing home medication error causing the wrongful death of this resident:

  1.  The nursing home never obtained the blood thinner medication that was ordered for the resident.  Obviously nursing homes are businesses and need to control their costs, so having a price threshold on medications is not an unreasonable thing to have in place.  However, failing to either authorize the purchase or otherwise address the issue is completely unacceptable.
  2. Over the course of three days, there were multiple medication passes that occurred without the resident receiving the blood thinner medication that ordered for him.  None of the nurses passing the medications those days brought this to anyone’s attention so that the issue could be addressed.  Failing to give medications which are ordered and doing nothing further is substandard nursing care.
  3. On the morning that the resident died, he was demonstrating a clear change in condition with the complaints of pain and shortness of breath.  Doctors are not in-house at nursing homes on a 24/7 basis, so nurses must serve as their eyes and ears and report to the doctors when a resident has a change in condition.  We know what the result would have been had the nursing staff reported the changes in this resident’s condition to his doctor – he would have recognized it as the medical emergency it was and instructed them to call 911.  This resident should have been in the emergency room 2-3 hours earlier which would have likely made all the difference.

Many of the nursing home cases we handle show this kind of pattern – multiple missed opportunities all along the way which would have avoided a catastrophic outcome.  Here, there were opportunities from the moment this resident came in the door up until the last hour or so of his life to avoid this outcome.  Missed opportunities yielding a tragic and avoidable outcome.

One of our core beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  This is one situation where this is sadly true.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Resident receives wrong medications at Manor Court of Freeport

Failure to notify doctor of abnormal labs at Momence Meadows

Failure to give anticoagulant medications at H&J Vonderlieth Living Center

 

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

 

Failure to adequately report changes in condition at Heritage Health in Carlinville

By

IDPH has cited and fined Heritage Health nursing home in Carlinville after a resident died from acute metabolic encephalopathy due to sepsis from a urinary tract infection.

One of the ways that nursing home care differs from a hospital is that there are not doctors on hand on a 24/7 basis.  When there is not a doctor on hand, it is part of the function of the nursing staff to serve as the “eyes and ears” of the doctor and report changes in the resident’s condition.  When things happen such as a resident having a nursing home fall, developing a bed sore, having abnormal labs, or  a medication error, it is part of the job of the nursing staff to let the doctor know what happened.

Outside of clearly defined events such as that, it is also part of the nursing staff to notify the doctor of changes in condition, which can be a bit more subtle, but just as important.  Examples of this would be increased lethargy, increased confusion, or other changes in mental status.

When the doctor receives a report from the nursing home staff, the doctor has four basic options: to decide to come in to see the resident himself, order the resident sent to the hospital, issue orders for the nursing staff to carry out, or to make no orders at all.  Whatever choice is made,  the fact of the communication with the doctor and the response of the doctor should be recorded in the resident chart.

Of course crucial to all of this is the substance of what was communicated to the doctor.  If the pertinent information is not communicated to the doctor, then that can result in poor decision-making by the doctor with the net being loss of opportunity to help the resident when help is needed most.  And this brings us to this citation issued by IDPH …

The resident was admitted to the nursing home after apparently breaking her right leg in a fall.  At the time of her admission on through the first several days of her admission, she was assessed as being cognitively intact, alert and oriented x3.  However, she began to complain of significant pain apparently from muscle spasms on the side with the broken leg.  The nurse practitioner prescribed Ropinrole to address the pain complaints.

The second day after the Ropinrole was started she began to demonstrate changes in mental status.  One nurse noted that she demonstrated forgetfulness.  Her daughter arrived in the facility and her mother told her that she was seeing bugs and ants which were not there, was seeing Cheerios on the floor, and that the ceiling black.  The nurse to whom the daughter reported this also noted that she was less responsive, more lethargic, and difficult to arouse.  She claims that she passed this information on to the nurse at the change of shift.

The nurse who had the next shift does not remember being told about hallucinations or anything out of the ordinary. She told the surveyor that she would have called the physician had she been told.  She was told by other family members the next day that they were concerned that the new medication was making the resident confused.  The Director of Nursing saw the resident later that day and there was discussion about the effects of the new medication.  She looked the medication up and saw that many of the symptoms that were being reported were listed as side effects for the medication.

The Director of Nursing called the doctor, and what was said is a crucial issue.  The Director of Nursing claims to have told the doctor about the reports of hallucinations, but he denied that, and his office record only noted a request to change her dose of pain medication and concerns over the side effects of the Roprinole.  The doctor told the state surveyor that had he been told of hallucinations earlier, he would have ordered her sent to the hospital sooner.

The day after this phone call, she had a set of routine labs drawn.  The results of this showed critically high abnormal scores.  This prompted another call to the doctor who ordered the resident transferred to the hospital.  At the local hospital, she diagnosed as suffering from Acute Metabolic Toxic Encepholapathy, a disease of the brain caused by a viral infection or toxins from the blood.  She was sent to a hospital in Springfield where she died five days later.  Cause of death was bacteremia from a urinary tract infection.

The key issues here relate to the substance and timing of the communication with the doctor.  The doctor made it clear that had he been told earlier that the resident was having hallucinations, he would have sent her to the hospital.  This goes all the way back to the first report by the family members to the nurse that the resident was seeing bugs and so forth, approximately 48 hours before she was finally sent to the hospital, and also to the call that was placed by the Director of Nursing approximately 24 hours later.

The fact that this was due to a urinary tract infection also deserves some attention that was not addressed in the citation by IDPH.  There are a number of other issues worth examination: was the resident using a catheter?  What were the vital signs?  Were there changes in the amount, color, or smell of the urine?  Were the complaints of burning while urinating?  These are questions that should be addressed in any competent investigation of the care that this resident received.

One of our core beliefs is that nursing homes are built to fail due to the business model they follow and that unnecessary accidental injuries and wrongful deaths of nursing home residents are the inevitable result.  Order our FREE report, Built to Fail, to learn more about why.  Our experienced Chicago nursing home lawyers are ready to help you understand what happened, why, and what your rights are.  Contact us to get the help you need.

Other blog posts of interest:

Staff at Grove of Evanston fails to notify doctor of resident’s decline

Infection goes unnoticed at Helia of Belleville

Failure to give diabetes medication at Bridge Care Suites

Click here to file a complaint about a nursing home with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

 

The Law Officecs of Barry G. Doyle, P.C.

Call Us Today

(312) 263-1080

Location

Skokie, IL
  • 4709 West Golf Road, Suite 1140
    Skokie, IL 60076
  • Phone: (312) 263-1080
  • Get Directions

Practice Areas

TAP TO CALL