Skip to main content

"1 In 20 Radiation Therapy Patients Will Suffer Injuries."

From the NY Times, that's an estimate from a radiation oncologist and leading authority in the treatment of radiation injuries. 1 in 20. 5 out of every 100.
"Most are normal complications from radiation, not mistakes... But in some cases the line between the two is uncertain..."
.

"My suspicion is that maybe half of the accidents we don't know about..." says another expert.
What's the true rate of error-caused injury from radiation therapy? Since radiation has inevitable side effects, maybe it's not as bad as 1 in 20. But injuries are said to be under-reported so maybe it's worse. Let's say the two adjustments cancel each other out and 1 in 20 is close to the real rate.

Name another industry that injures or kills five percent of its customers.

This being health care, mistakes leading to injury are blamed on everything from balky computer software to staffing shortages to something called a "wide open multileaf collimator." A physicist fails to run a test before a patient's first treatment. A therapist fails to monitor the correct computer screen. Equipment is not tested after repairs.

So much for six sigma.

Here's a question: who is really at fault if you KNOW your linear accelerator's software is glitch-prone and yet you keep using the machine even while reporting the problem to the manufacturer?

Must...meet...budget...no...matter...what...

We'd never tolerate that level of "safety" from those who keep our drinking water pure, our air travel accident-free or our nuclear power plants humming. On a probability basis, even our hamburger is safer.

The article quotes one victim's father who "...had thought about starting a campaign to make medical mistakes public — but he never did. Nothing would ever come of it, he concluded."

Not a pretty picture, especially for an industry already on notice about unacceptably high rates of medical errors.


Comments

I think Walt Bogdanich's article is written poorly, because the title of your post is based on an inaccurate portrayal of two horrendous medical errors as more common than they are.

The article cited 621 errors in 8 years without mentioning that probably about 470000 people received radiation treatment in that time. That is an error rate of 0.1%, not 5%. But the article didn't include this fact. Here's where I found information within 5 minutes of web search:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/cancer/registry/vol1.htm

I think the 5% was supposed to be serious radiation injury, but again without citing data or recognizing that radiation side effects are different for different cancers.

Mr. Bogdanich is a talented writer who unfortunately chose not put the problem in context. The two patients' trauma from treatment is heart-rending, but the article's message is terribly distorted. The error rate should be zero, vigilance is critical. Hopefully the scrutiny will not scare people away from an effective cancer treatment that does require careful attention and expertise.

Popular posts from this blog

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcar…

Becoming Consumer Friendly In Five Easy Steps...Or Not

An article at hhnmag.com offers hospitals 5 steps to becoming more consumer friendly.

If you still think there's a secret sauce to your hospital becoming more "consumer friendly," these 5 steps are as good a place to start as any.  Unfortunately, it's a little like that old Steve Martin comedy bit where he says he'll teach you how to be rich. The first step is to go find a million dollars.

Step 1 from the article is realizing that "...a Medicare beneficiary with chronic conditions is different from a young mom who brings her kids in for an annual check-up." This is market segmentation for beginners, and, yes, one size decidedly does not fit all. I'm sure your marketing team's been saying this for a while.

Steps 2-5: have a strategy, metrics, a champion and resources. OK. Hard to argue with any of those.

But those things, alone or together, won't overcome culture. They're important components to be sure, but insufficient without a …

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer.

In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers." 

Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings.

$2.4 billion saved from a p…