Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center USA case analysis

Case on Surgery: Iturralde V. Hilo Medical Center USA
Name
Institution of Affiliation
Introduction
In the medical world today, there are several cases of malpractices. They are caused by different causes, whereby some of the malpractices are as a result of negligence, intentional while others are just unintentional. It is the duty of any medical practitioner to do their level best to avoid such incidences. This paper will provide a discussion of matters pertaining to malpractices in the health sector with the specific use of the Iturralde vs. Hilo case. This paper will stipulate some of such malpractices, the mitigating strategies, the impacts of the malpractices and other related aspects to the case and the general topic of discussion in this paper. This paper will use the research, read and analysis technique as the main method of data collection, while other methods such as interviews will also be used to some extent. This paper aims to outline and explain the issue of medical malpractices, some examples of such, the reason why they shouldn’t occur, the cost of such happenings and the mitigating strategies which can be used to deal with them and t avoid them completely in future.
Case Background
In Itturralde vs. Hilo Medical Centre USA, Arturo Iturralde, who was the complainant, filed a lawsuit against Doctor Bob Ricketson and Hilo Medical Centre because of the medical malpractice which exposed the patient to health hazards (Quick, 2017). The intermediate court of appeal made a decision in favor of the litigant, a decision made on 30th March 2012. Due to the fact that the patient lost his life because of medical negligence (malpractice), the daughter as well as the caregiver Rosalinda represented her brother in the case. Doctor Bob Ricketson performed surgery on Arturo Iturralde, an operation done at Hilo medical center due to the fact that Arturo Iturralde needed a spinal fusion surgery (Quick, 2017). The hardware kit ought to have provided the required instruments and tools which were ordered from Medtronic. At that moment, Medtronic lacked the kits for instrumentation, i.e. it was out of stock and as a result, two orders of the same were done to Memphis and Tulane respectively. The shipments from the two orders were received the same day. The Hilo Medical Centre staff did not complete the content inventory for the kit which was needed by the medical facility policy.
One nurse told Doctor Robert that the inventory was not completed nevertheless; the doctor went ahead and did the surgery. In the course of the surgery it was discovered that the required titanium implantation rods were not available (Quick, 2017). An inquiry was made to Medtronic center on the rods, and Doctor Ricketson was informed that it could have taken about 90 minutes to deliver the required rods to Hilo Medical center. Instead, the doctor decided otherwise that the time period was too long at that it posed a great danger to the patient. A makeshift rod was made by Doctor Robert, by use of the stainless steel screwdriver fixed in a kit. The makeshift rod was then implanted into the spine of the patient albeit the fact neither the patient nor any of the family members were informed of the decision.
The implantation of the artificial piece of rod later caused complications to Arturo who had several falls during his work period at PT, and which consequently caused his shaft to shatter. This sequence of events and the ordeal which preceded the incident prompted the filing of the above legal suit against the doctor and Hilo medical center as a whole (Chadwick & Gallagher, 2016).
Discussion
In the above case, firstly, there ought to have been due diligence on the inventory so as to ascertain that all the necessary items were there before the surgery was done. It is clear that the negligence of the medical personnel people in counterchecking the inventory was huge oversight in the whole process.
On the other hand, the doctor ought not to have performed the operation before ascertaining that all the necessary and required tools of surgery were present (Chadwick & Gallagher, 2016). It all amounts to professional negligence in the part of the doctor, because, ascertaining that all the tolls of work are there before one begins their work anywhere is simply but a professional duty.
Elsewhere, the doctor and his team who were undertaking the operation should have informed the patient or the next of kins/ close relatives of the patient before making a decision to use the makeshift piece of the rod (Quick, 2017). There was no consent of the client for the makeshift rod piece to be used and therefore it meant that all those actions taken (to use the makeshift rod instead of the required one) were purely unilateral decisions and in case of any side effects which could have resulted after, the accused was to be fully accountable for it.
The above malpractices have several impacts/ effects on the different parties for instance, to the family and the general public; it instilled fear to them regarding the whole medical system. Some of the people can easily become so fearful of being treated again in case of such effects. Such an action can also cause the public to lose confidence on the hospitals and additionally it can cause ripple effects after the case, i.e. scenarios where people decide to sue more firms with similar cases, which may have e occurred before (Quick, 2017).
The key legal components of the case are the negligence of duty, unprofessionalism, and lack of consent of the necessary party. For the case of negligence of duty, there was no due diligence done to ascertain that all the items of the inventory were present. In terms of professional negligence, the doctor and his team didn’t counter check to ensure that at least before the surgery was made; there was every n necessary tool (Quick, 2017). As a result it caused the team to be in a dilemma when they realized such tools were missing and the reasons that it could have taken about one and a half hours to deliver the missing item, proved to be such a long period of time which prompted the doctor to make up his mind on the fact that a makeshift one was best for the circumstance.
Consent issues do come in when the patient is not informed prior to the operation that a different tool could be used rather than the required one. At least in the worst case scenario none of the family members of the patients were aware (Chadwick & Gallagher, 2016). It, therefo...