Prostate Errantly Removed; Lawsuit, No Response to Media
Recently a news story ran about a 48-year old Pennsylvania man -- Mr. Eric Spangs -- who had a slightly elevated PSA from a routine blood test. Follow up tests were conducted, including a biopsy, which led to a diagnosis of cancer. Surgeons removed Mr. Spangs' prostate, but then a physician came back to Mr. Spangs and his wife and said a mistake had been made: His biopsy had been mixed up with another man (who actually has cancer). The news was too late as Mr. Spangs' prostate had already been removed and he is suffering physically (urinary leakage, erectile disfunction) and psychologically. Mr. Spangs says he doesn't feel like a man.
The Spangs are suing, and their story is big news in the City of Brotherly Love. The medical organizations involved in Mr. Spangs' care had no response to the media story.
Let's unpack this situation. First, it's a never event. Second, kuddos to one of the physicians for admitting there was a mistake, and not only informing the Spangs but also the other man who actually has cancer...in the old days Mr. Spangs would still be thinking he had cancer and the other guy might have been out of luck all together. But, third, why is there a lawsuit for an admitted mistake that was a never event? And, fourth, why did the hospital system and urological center named in the lawsuit say "no comment" to the media (or refused to return phone calls)?
The Spangs and their personal injury lawyer provided a devastating account for the 6 o'clock news seen by the customers of the hospital system and urological center. When will defense lawyers realize the reputational cost/damage of such stories can dwarf any potential financial settlement with an individual patient or family? We asked the same question back in January when a St. Louis hospital said "no comment" after a tragic, possibly preventable death involving a father, husband, and community leader. In the Philly case, the names of the hospital system and urological center are splattered all over the news, and they look horrible. At the minimum, the involved healthcare organizations could have offered a sympathetic voice to the reporting, expressed sorrow for this never event, pledged they will work to prevent these mistakes in the future, and voiced their willingness to help the Spangs family. Instead, the Spangs and their attorney shared a completely different narrative. In fact, the Spangs repeatedly said they don't want this mistake to happen to someone else, which a common refrain from patients and families impacted by medical errors.
This story is yet another example of how the pro-active nature of disclosure and apology programs must include coordinating effectively with outside organizations. Also, when outside organizations won't ethically step up post-event, your institution must still be willing to move forward, stay connected with the patient/family, and do the right thing according to your role in the event. This pro-active approach will stop most lawsuits and other complaints in an ethical, fair fashion. However, when complaints are splattered all over the media your disclosure and apology program must also be pro-active with the media..."no comment" is not acceptable. This is Crisis Communications 101 for healthcare. Earlier this summer Sorry Works! announced a partnership with LEVICK, a leading Washington, D.C. Crisis Communications Firm. If you need help with crisis communications, give us a call at 618-559-8168 or e-mail doug@sorryworks.net.
Finally, remember Sorry Works! is raising funds for a research project on teaching future physicians to apologize in medical schools. We have started a GoFundMe campaign that has raised over $2,500...please help us with a donation and by sharing with colleagues and friends.
Sincerely,
- Doug
Doug Wojcieszak, Founder and President
Sorry Works!
618-559-8168 (direct dial)
doug@sorryworks.net