Brief description of the condition:On March 30, 2021, the plaintiff was unable to lie flat in the defendant's emergency department due to chest tightness and asthma in the past three days, and was later transferred to the cardiac surgery department. On April 7, 2021, the plaintiff underwent coronary artery bypass grafting + mitral valvulogenesis surgery and was discharged from the hospital on April 30. On May 6, due to local redness and swelling of the postoperative incision and a small amount of pale yellow fluid oozing, he was hospitalized again, during which he underwent several drainage operations, and on July 6, the plaintiff's wound did not heal but was asked to be discharged. On November 6, 2021, the plaintiff was admitted to a hospital in Beijing** and was discharged on November 30 for 24 days, and the discharge condition was that he was well healed. Subsequently, the plaintiff's wound became infected. The plaintiff believed that because the defendant did not pay attention to the cause of the infection, the treatment of the plaintiff's condition was delayed, which aggravated the condition and caused sternal osteomyelitis and costochondritis, causing the plaintiff great physical and mental suffering. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting a judgment in accordance with the law.
Court Hearing:According to the judicial appraisal opinion, the patient's postoperative incision infection, mediastinal abscess, and sternal osteomyelitis were foreseeable but difficult to completely avoid surgical complications, and the patient had a history of diabetes and was prone to infection. The doctor made a pre-operative prediction, informed the patient of the relevant surgical risks in the surgical informed consent form, placed a drainage tube during the operation, and applied antibiotics to prevent and treat the infection after the operation, and took necessary preventive measures. However, 10 days after surgery, the patient's sudden incision pain was unbearable, accompanied by obvious elevation of inflammatory indicators such as blood picture and CPR, and the possible causes were not fully identified, and the diagnosis and treatment ideas were limited due to the incision infection, which affected the diagnosis and treatment of incision infection to a certain extent, prolonged the course of the patient's disease, and the doctor's fault and the incision infection failed to obtain timely diagnosis and treatment, and the prolongation of the course of the disease had a certain causal relationship. The appraisal opinions are: 1. According to the available information, the doctor is at fault in the process of diagnosis and treatment of the person being evaluated, and there is a certain causal relationship with the consequences of the injury, and it is recommended that the causal force is a secondary cause; 2. The current condition of the person being evaluated has not reached the level of disability.
After comprehensive analysis, the court ruled that the defendant hospital should bear 40% of the compensation liability, i.e. 6183804 yuan, plus 5,000 yuan for mental damages, the defendant hospital should compensate the plaintiff a total of 66,83804 yuan.
Brief Analysis:The plaintiff was complicated by mediastinal abscess, sternal osteitis, left rib chondritis, surgical incision infection and other surgical complications after surgery, which were foreseeable but difficult to completely avoid. The doctor's measures to prevent infection in the perioperative period were not in place, the operation was inappropriate due to poor blood sugar control, the condition was not adequately assessed when he was discharged from the hospital for the first time during the diagnosis and treatment, and he was discharged in a hurry; The analysis of the cause of local infection in the second hospitalization for 2 months was not sufficient, the relevant examinations were not in place, the first measures taken were not active, the operation failed to be completely debrided, and the anti-infection strength was insufficient, which increased the patient's pain, prolonged the course of the disease, and increased the cost, and the relevant operation violated the provisions of the "Technical Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Surgical Site Infection (2010)", and the doctor was at fault.
Pay attention to Baijiahao's "Medical Road and Legal Aid" to understand the real cases of medical disputes.