Project Milestone One 1: Malpractice Case
Project Milestone One
For this milestone, you will start working on the case for Final Project I: Malpractice. Below is is a link to the case you will investigate. This link is also provided in the Final Project I Guidelines and Rubric document.
Surgery: Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center USA
Prompt: In this milestone, you will complete part of your analysis of the malpractice case. Using this analysis of the case, you will address the facts pertaining to
the medical standard of care, breach of care, and causation. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Introduction:
A. Summarize the case, including information on the stakeholders involved, the problem, and the time period the incident occurred.
II. Medical Malpractice Component: In this section, you will evaluate the case to address the legal components, the malpractice policies similar to this case, and the standard of care given to the patient and how it was breached. Then, you will draw connections to how this malpractice case impacted stakeholders and healthcare consumers outside of the case.
- Explain the key legal components of the case, including the nature of the issue and the rules that applied.
- Determine relevant malpractice policies in place for addressing the issues within the case.
- Analyze the malpractice case for the standard of care provided to the victim. Be sure to apply what the law states about standard of care to
support whether or not it was breached in the case.
- Analyze how the malpractice case would impact healthcare consumers from different cultural backgrounds. For example, would this case have a
similar impact on a person from a culture different from the one in the case? How could this incident change the views of these healthcare
consumers toward the healthcare system?
- Assess the malpractice case for accountability based on its severity. To what extent was the healthcare provider held accountable?
Case below is what the paper needs to be answered.
LINK TO CASE –> com/hi-intermediate-court-of-appeals/1597588.html”>https://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-of-appeals/1597588.html
Attached below is Rubric with further instructions!!
IHP 420 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: The final case study for this course will require you to analyze a court decision in which a physician was found liable for medical malpractice. You will focus on facts pertaining to the medical standard of care, breach of care, and causation, and you will explain how they were applied to law. You will then use the facts of the case to identify an ethics issue and determine an ethical theory that would help provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient.
Next, you will apply a clinician–patient shared decision-making model to describe how the ethics issue could be resolved. You will also include a discussion about possible violations of the code of ethics in your given field. Lastly, you will augment or vary the facts of the case to create a hypothetical scenario that changes the outcome so that the physician is no longer liable for medical malpractice.
For this milestone, you will start working on the case for Final Project I: Malpractice. Below is is a link to the case you will investigate. This link is also provided in the Final Project I Guidelines and Rubric document.
Surgery: Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center USA
Prompt: In this milestone, you will complete part of your analysis of the malpractice case. Using this analysis of the case, you will address the facts pertaining to the medical standard of care, breach of care, and causation.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Introduction:
A. Summarize the case, including information on the stakeholders involved, the problem, and the time period the incident occurred.
II. Medical Malpractice Component: In this section, you will evaluate the case to address the legal components, the malpractice policies similar to this case, and the standard of care given to the patient and how it was breached. Then, you will draw connections to how this malpractice case impacted stakeholders and healthcare consumers outside of the case.
A. Explain the key legal components of the case, including the nature of the issue and the rules that applied. B. Determine relevant malpractice policies in place for addressing the issues within the case. C. Analyze the malpractice case for the standard of care provided to the victim. Be sure to apply what the law states about standard of care to
support whether or not it was breached in the case. D. Analyze how the malpractice case would impact healthcare consumers from different cultural backgrounds. For example, would this case have a
similar impact on a person from a culture different from the one in the case? How could this incident change the views of these healthcare consumers toward the healthcare system?
E. Assess the malpractice case for accountability based on its severity. To what extent was the healthcare provider held accountable?
Rubric
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-of-appeals/1597588.html
Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be a 2- to 3-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format.
Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Introduction: Summarize
Summarize the case, including information on the stakeholders involved, the problem, and the time period of the incident that occurred
Summarizes the case, but summary is cursory or illogical, contains inaccuracies, or does not include information on the stakeholders, the problem, or the time period of the incident
Does not summarize the case 15
Medical Malpractice Component: Legal
Components
Explains the key legal components of the case, including the nature of the issue and the rules that applied
Explains the key legal components of the case, but analysis is illogical, contains inaccuracies, or does not include the nature of the issue or the rules that applied
Does not explain the key legal components of the case
15
Medical Malpractice Component:
Malpractice Policies
Determines relevant malpractice policies in place for addressing the issues within the case
Determines malpractice policies, but response lacks detail, or the chosen policies are irrelevant or do not address the issues of the case
Does not determine relevant malpractice policies in place for addressing the issues within the case
15
Medical Malpractice Component:
Standard of Care
Analyzes the malpractice case for the standard of care provided to the victim, and applies what the law states about standard of care to support whether or not it was breached in the case
Analyzes the malpractice case for the standard of care provided to the victim, but does not apply what the law states about standard of care
Does not analyze the malpractice case for the standard of care provided to the victim
15
Medical Malpractice Component: Cultural
Backgrounds
Analyzes how the malpractice case would impact healthcare consumers from different cultural backgrounds
Analyzes how the malpractice case would impact healthcare consumers from different cultural backgrounds, but analysis is cursory or contains inaccuracies
Does not analyze how the malpractice case would impact healthcare consumers from different cultural backgrounds
15
Medical Malpractice
Component: Accountability
Assesses the malpractice case for accountability based on its severity and explains the level of accountability the healthcare provider was held to
Assesses the malpractice case for accountability based on its severity and explains the level of accountability the healthcare provider was held to, but explanation lacks detail or is illogical
Does not assess the malpractice case for accountability based on its severity
15
Articulation of Response
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas
Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas
10
Total 100%
| Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?) | |
| ● Who are the parties in this case: plaintiff and defendant? | Plaintiff: Arturo Iturralde (Estate) &daughter/caretaker RosalindaDefendant: Hilo Medical Center USA & Dr.Ricketson |
| ● What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court? | Hilo Medical Center admitted Arturo Iturralde because the patient complained of frequent falls and bilateral legs weakness. Upon diagnosis, the orthopedic physician, Dr. Ricketson, diagnosed the patient degenerative spondylolisthesis L4–5 with stenosis and booked a spinal fusion surgery. The medical equipment kits meant to conduct the procedure were not available at the hospital, so they were ordered from Medtronic. Upon their arrival, the inventory staff attendant failed to record them. Despite Dr. Ricketson being informed about this mistake, he decided to continue with the operation as scheduled. Failure to locate the appropriate rods needed to stabilize the spine; the doctor became impatient of the 90 minutes it would take for them to be brought and as an alternative used a screwdriver that was in the kit. The patient was not informed and later discharged home with permission to drive and advised to follow up on weakly therapies. While at home, the rod broke and the patient required a fresh operation. The caretaker present took the pieces of the fractured screwdriver to the lawyer because her supervisor would want to disclose why the leading operation was unsuccessful. Later, the patient kicked the bucket after experiencing many complications after the operation had taken place. |
| ● Is the court deciding a question of fact—i.e., are the parties in dispute over what happened?Or is it a question of law—i.e., is the court unsure which rule to apply to these facts? | The court was deciding a law issue. The law issue is whether the hospital and the doctor responsible were careless enough to cause the death of the patient. |
| ● Which facts of the case raise issues? | Three states were against Dr. Ricketson license on professionalism disciplinary orders before joining Hilo Medical Center.Dr. Ricketson declined the delivered two rods by the Medtronic supplies amid the medical procedure in the emergency clinic.The medical attendant watching did not report before the patient started complaining about the adverse results because he was operated with a screwdriver. |
| ● What are the nonissues? | Out of the many falls the patient experienced, it led to the breaking of screwdriver bar. |
| ● Other |
Modified from com/guide/irac.html”>http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html
