The behavior of holding a consultation is unstandard to infer mistakenly that must take on the responsibility

The behavior of holding a consultation is unstandard to infer mistakenly that must take on the responsibility
Zheng GuoXiong Liu, profile of details of the case, 60 year old, because have a headache, look at over the intersection of head and CT check fuzzy February such as thing, diagnose as the adenoma apoplexy of pituitary. Some hospital please pass through, enter, excise skill by hypophyseal adenoma by way by disc by nose under general anesthesia for their in will it be January 2010 by some famous expert at home, find in postoperative 6 hours Liu loses the sight of both eyes, walk rapidly CT check and point out residual tumour and internal haemorrhage, tumour is a of hematoma. The expert has already returned to the other places at this moment, their telephones are pointed out to perform the operation the treatment immediately. Hospital this doctor worried to pass through volume, turn on cranium hematoma, remove and remain the hypophyseal tumour and excise the skill to patient, postoperative condition is steady, but eyesight has not been improved, in hospital for 35 days, the patient loses the sight of both eyes and leaves hospital. Liu thinks the hospital has fault, prosecute it to the court. One judicial expertise centre connoisseur thinks the hospital has the following negligent acts: The consultation behavior of the consulting staff is unstandard. The consulting staff of this case understands behind courtyard from other places before the skill the way of patient's condition is to listen to the telephone to report to the operating room directly, have not examined and checked to patients in person before the skill, has seen Liu's CT one while brushing hands before the skill, and tell patient that relatives should perform the operation. Consulting about experts has not participated in the skill to discuss, had not analyzed the condition. Implemented before operation, back, consulted about experts and had not written document of any case history. The operation record is unstandard, the operation record is written by the 1st assistant of operation, but the person who doesn't have skill signs, violate relevant regulations. The doctor collects and consults about the fee instead of providing receipts. Appraise the opinion: Disease that negligent act and Liu of the hospital suffer from causes eyesight to damage together. It is required that " the doctor goes out to consult about the interim regulation on the management " to discuss law according to the case in Ministry of Public Health, " the doctor can't go out to hold a consultation without the permission of medical organization where one stays " ; "The doctor accepts that should find out about the patient's condition in detail, examine and look into a patient in person after the task of holding a consultation, finish the corresponding consultation work, and write the medical document according to the regulation " ; " the side should provide for patient and charge the note formally to charge " , " should pay and consult about the medical organization to consult about the expenses in unison, can't pay and hold a consultation to cure teacher " . In this case, the consulting staff gets to invite the hospital to hold a consultation, treat for the patient with the approval of unit, accord with relevant regulations, but its behavior of consultation exists in the place in violation of rules and regulations. The consulting staff comes from other places to the operating room directly, has not examined and checked to a patient in person before the skill, lack the opinion of any analysis on the condition of experts in the case history, has not written document of any case history either, violate the aforesaid regulation, should be regarded as the negligent act. The relevant regulation does not have clear regulation which operation doctor must discuss before participating in the skill, I think, awkward degree of surgery in this case greater with higher risk therapeutic measure, deal with operation preparation, operation indication, operation scheme, accident and precautionary measures,etc. that may appear and carry on the serious discussion before the skill. This operation is the medical activity that many doctors participate in together, it is essential for the operation participant to communicate before the skill; Does not the operation person participate in the skill and discuss, then, how was the operation scheme confirmed? It is not appropriate that the operation person does not participate in the discussion of before the skill. In addition, the consulting staff operates the operation that is implemented, the 1st assistant writes the operation record, but the person who doesn't have operation signs to approve, violate the aforesaid regulation. Sign, should perform the operation the record can't reflect the operation passes objectively and truly and in an all-round way because of the person who doesn't have operation. Record because of lack objective surgery, so can't verify it accord with the norm, have no fault that the operation is operated. " law of liability for tort " stipulates, violate law, administrative statute, rule and other normal regulations about making a diagnosis, infer the medical organization has fault; The medical worker has not tried the obligation of making a diagnosis to correspond with medical level at that time in the activity of making a diagnosis, cause patient's damage, the medical organization should bear compensation responsibility. This case, the court judges too the hospital should bear certain civil liability. The surgery is a complicated system engineering, need to examine and check to patients conscientiously before operation, define operation indication and there is operation taboo disease, confirm operation way, the preparation before do a good job of the skill, fully assess the operation risk, and do a good job of postoperative observation and treatment. The surgeon should not become and only do the operation, ignore other " operation craftsmans " . (Author's unit: Straight source judicial expertise place of Qingdao)

|