Surgeon's Point-of-View (POV) Video Recording

Learning how to video record vivid, stable, high-def, and focussed shots from my (surgeon's) point-of-view has not been an easy endeavor due to technology limitations, though things do appear to be slowly improving. There have been pros and cons with most video-recording systems to date which I have summarized below. The "perfect" video-recording system has yet to be developed which must include all these elements:

• Wearable on headlight or glasses
• Camera located between the eyes that is maneuverable to adjust recording angle
• Head-up view to see what is being recorded real-time
• Manual white balance adjustment

• Manual exposure adjustment (bright lights used in surgery often confuse auto-exposure settings which result in washed-out pictures)

• Auto-focussing with adjustable zoom

• VERY good image stabilization

• HD video-recording

General Problems with Head-Mounted Video Recordings

The problem with current head mounted video-recording systems including Google Glass are several-fold. First of all, no matter how good you think you are staying still, there are constant micro-motions/tremors which produce unusable erratic videos. This annoying camera movement becomes even more pronounced when using cameras with longer focal lengths which is why most head-mounted camera systems come with a fixed, wide-angle lens which unfortunately takes away from the narrow-angle, focussed shot a surgeon would like recorded.

Also, the smaller and lighter the camera, the more inferior the optics resulting in poor video quality (compared to high-resolution, 3CCD, HD recordings which is what the surgeon's want).

These short-comings are common with all head-mounted video-recording systems. Unfortunately, there are even more problems depending the camera.

Google Glass (or any eyeglass side-mounted camera)

Typically, when a surgeon operates, the surgical field (green) is a certain distance from the his/her face. When in a comfortable position, wearing any type of head-mounted camera system located on the side like Google Glass unfortunately ends up video-recording a point that is above and to the side (purple) of what is actually desired.

In order to compensate the vertical offset, either the surgeon has to flex the head more or move the eyeglass down towards the lip.

To adjust the horizontal offset, the surgeon would have to turn and move the head to one side such that the camera has a more direct line shot into the surgical field... but that would mean the surgeon would be operating off-centered, almost looking over one shoulder.

Although doable, this is far from perfect or comfortable.

Central Head-Mounted Video Camera Systems

There ARE video-recording cameras that contain a camera that can be placed centrally over the forehead or between the eyes including Luxtec and SurgeonCam which are mounted on the headlight and PivotHead glasses (among others) where the camera is built into the frame between the eyes.

The headlight mounted systems'  camera angle can be adjusted to provide a more precise POV recording, but the general disadvantages of body-worn cameras still apply with constant erratic motion and wide-angle shots that do not specifically focus in on the surgical field.

The PivotHead glasses do provide perfect central shots, but still suffer from a vertical offset (orange) which cannot be adjusted like the headlight mounted systems.

Overhead Mounted Camera Systems

For the same reason the best photos are obtained by cameras fixed to a tripod, the best videos are often obtained by cameras fixed into position by a stationary object.

One object cameras can be attached to are overhead fixtures.. specifically the operating room lights.

Such cameras are attached typically to the light-handle of such overhead operating room lights which are directed down into the surgical field. Such systems provide excellent focussed, stable, high-quality video-recordings with one BIG disadvantage. The surgeon's head keeps getting in the way.

Also, the light-handle is positioned for optimal lighting of the surgical field... not optimal framing for capturing good videos.

Bed-Mounted Camera Systems

Using a Thompson Laparoscopic Retractor System, the video camera can be attached to one of the articulating arms and adjusted sterilely as needed. Using this retractor system can allow the camera to be positioned independently of the overhead operating room lights and to be as close to the surgical field as necessary.

The video is limited by how good the camera is that is attached. The best one I've been able to find is the Sony HXR-MC1 which incorporates a large-sized lipstick camera that is attached to a controller where manual controls for focus, zoom, white balance, exposure, etc can be made. Other than the built-in LCD screen, there are included plugs (Component, RCA, and with adapter S-Video) that allow what the camera is recording to be thrown up onto a large screen.

Other wireless video lipstick cameras are now being produced, but lack manual controls to adjust zoom, white balance, and exposure. Some offer real-time video display so it may be just a matter of time before all other manual controls found with the Sony HXR-MC1 become more widely available.

The main disadvantage with this setup is that the setup itself can get in the way of the surgeon.

Conclusion

So there you have it... No perfect surgical POV video system yet... Maybe in the next few years if technology keeps moving the way it is.

Read More

ER Doc Found Negligent in Bell's Palsy Case

This case is not quite what you might think...

Here's the background... The Wisconsin State Supreme Court  found an ER physician negligent for failing to offer a carotid ultrasound for a patient who presented with an isolated facial paralysis (patient did not exhibit paralysis anywhere else in the body) and upheld a $2 million jury award to the patient in 2008. Not only that, the Wisconsin Medical Board reprimanded the ER physician and fined her $300. [link]

Hmmmm... After all, it is not considered routine nor standard of care to obtain a carotid ultrasound for an isolated facial paralysis known as Bell's palsy. I should also mention that the ER physician was NOT found negligent in the diagnosis of Bell's palsy.

Well, here's the other part of the story... The patient did have a CT scan of the brain in the ER which was normal. A diagnosis of Bell's palsy was appropriately made by the ER physician and the patient sent home. Eleven days later, the patient suffered a stroke with irreversible damage. A stroke workup at that time revealed a carotid artery with 95% obstruction.

For those uninitiated, paralysis due to a blocked carotid artery would cause lack of blood flow to one entire half of the brain resulting in not only facial paralysis, but also paralysis of half the body too. Furthermore, a stroke causing facial paralysis would have forehead sparing (more on this).

The court's feeling was that the patient should have been offered a carotid ultrasound at the time of the initial ER visit for Bell's palsy... in essence, the court was stating a stroke workup should have been offered/done for a Bell's Palsy. I should also mention that most ER's do not have carotid ultrasound capabilities outside of business hours.

To reiterate, a carotid ultrasound is NOT a test that a physician would or should normally order for a Bell's Palsy workup. By the court stating a carotid ultrasound should have been performed, it has turned a medical condition of Bell's palsy which is not a stroke concern into a diagnosis of possible stroke.

Does that now mean that whenever a patient presents with a Bell's palsy, a stroke protocol should also be pursued which would include:

1) Stroke rapid response by the ER
2) Hospital admission
3) Stroke workup which would include:
  • Carotid ultrasound
  • MRI Head
  • Cardiac workup for arrhythmias (atrial fibrillation which can cause embolic stroke)
  • Pulmonary and vascular workup for deep venous thrombosis (can also cause embolic stroke)
etc, etc, etc

Medically speaking, Bell's palsy is NOT a stroke nor a concern for possible stroke nor increased risk of stroke. Bell's palsy is an isolated inflammation of the facial nerve that has nothing to do with the brain.

ER physicians have a hard enough job as it is now, but to be responsible for pursuing workups for totally unrelated diagnosis separate from the main presenting concern should be cause for concern.

Perhaps there is more to this case that was absent from what has been reported in the media...

Source:
State board reprimands doctor who was found negligent by high court. Wisconsin State Journal 3/21/13

Health Sense: How much should doctor tell you? Wisconsin State Journal 7/9/12

Read More

Do Surgeons Swear When Operating?

Surgeons, whether deserved or not, have a reputation of being mean-spirited and foul-mouthed as a group overall. It does not help that TV shows and movies perpetuate this reputation.

Well, a study was actually carried out to see if surgeons are truly foul-mouthed or not and published their findings in the British Medical Journal in 1999.

Using a grading system based on how bad the swearing is, researchers secretly tallied how often surgeons used profanity in the operating room.

The observation was carried out over 100 operations totaling 80 hours and 30 minutes of operating time.

What they found was that orthopedic surgeons were found to be the most foul-mouthed with an overall score of 41 (zero being no swearing at all).

ENT surgeons had the best score of 2 when one surgeon exclaimed "bugger" during one case.

Here's the chart...

Taken from BMJ

Reference:
Surgeons swear when operating: fact or myth? BMJ 1999; 319 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7225.1611 (Published 18 December 1999)

Read More

Is Patient Abandonment in the Operating Room Ever Justified?

I ask this question mainly because there WAS an ENT who WAS sued for NOT abandoning his patient in the operating room [link]. No way to verify, but additional details can be found in this facebook post.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario (as details from original case are not available)...

You are an ENT surgeon in a rural community hospital performing a fairly difficult but elective sinus surgery on a 12 years old child with cystic fibrosis with extensive pan-sinus nasal polypoid disease. Given the extensive nasal polypoid disease, a fair amount of bleeding is occurring which was not unanticipated.

Suddenly, you get a phone call from the emergency room regarding a patient with progressive difficulty breathing suspected to have epiglottitis.

What do you do if you are the only ENT in the hospital?

Do you "abandon" the 12 years old child in the operating room, still bleeding, still under general anesthesia and attend to the ER patient who himself might die without an emergency tracheostomy? Doing an evaluation to determine how critical the ER patient may take anywhere from 15 - 60 minutes including the tracheostomy itself. Keep in mind that 99% of the time, a tracheostomy is NOT necessary.

And, if a tracheostomy WAS needed, you are now performing two different surgeries in two different rooms simultaneously which must break some rule somewhere... perhaps JCAHO?

Or, would you finish the surgical case first, and than proceed to see the ER patient?

What if you are the only ENT available in the region let alone the hospital? No fellow ENT colleagues to call upon for help. General surgery is "unavailable" or not comfortable with performing tracheostomies especially given ENT performs all tracheostomies in the hospital?

Patient abandonment is defined as:

• Failing to transfer a patient to an appropriate level of care
• Failing to respond to calls from a hospital regarding a patient
• Refusing to care for a patient after arranging the patient's admission
• Failing to treat a patient until new coverage is arranged

Proving patient abandonment includes:

• Your doctor had a duty to treat you - a duty was created when the physician-patient relationship was established
• You had a reasonable expectation that your doctor would treat you
• Your doctor failed to treat you although he or she was obligated to do so
• You suffered injury as a result

Well, according to one lawsuit, it seems that the ENT was required to abandon his patient in the operating room and attend to the ER patient. The lawsuit stemmed from the fact that the ENT did not abandon his patient in the operating room and the ER patient did die as a result of not being attended to quickly and competent emergency tracheostomy performed. Of course, the settled lawsuit also blamed the hospital, general surgery, and anesthesiology.

However, abandoning a patient on the operating room table is also tantamount to medical malpractice according to the very definition of patient abandonment.

And, I would not be surprised if the patient on the operating room table would have sued the ENT if he DID leave the operating room in the middle of surgery to attend to another patient for a long period of time (and even starting another operation without ever finishing the abandoned patient's surgery first).

What to do?

I have no answer...

Doing an emergency tracheostomy is HARD, even for someone who has performed hundreds of elective tracheostomies. I know... I've done perhaps a half-dozen emergency trachs in my career so far. In this particular lawsuit, I found it incredible that a hospitalist (not a surgeon) was the one who finally attempted the emergency tracheostomy (albeit unsuccessfully).

Do you consider the patient you are CURRENTLY caring for has a higher priority than a patient you have never met, even if possible life-threatening illness is involved? (Keep in mind that when called for an airway problem, that 99% of the time, an emergency tracheostomy is not needed.)

OR, do you prioritize the patient you have never met given the possible life-and-death circumstances involved, even if 99% of the time, no surgical airway is required.

What would YOU do? What should you do? Feel free to comment below!

The way I see it, the ENT would have been sued no matter what decision was made. It would have been a lose-lose and lose proposition.

By deciding to stay with his current patient, the ENT was sued by the ER patient's family. If the ENT left his current patient on the operating room table, the ENT would have been sued for abandonment. If the ENT did abandon the current patient and the ER patient still died in spite of an emergency tracheostomy, the ENT would probably be sued for wrongful death by the ER patient's family AND the patient he abandoned on the operating room table.

Source:

Hospital settles wrongful death lawsuit. Curry Coastal Pilot 10/31/12

ADDENDUM 12/5/12:
Information obtained from an anonymous source reported that the ENT who was sued ultimately had charges dismissed with prejudice. It was maintained from the beginning that the ENT's obligation was to the patient on the table and that there was no doctor-patient relationship with the deceased.

I also find it interesting that the hospital where the lawsuit occurred, now does not even have ENT coverage at all. I guess that's what happens when a lawsuit occurs when there's only solo specialist coverage. I'm predicting that this hospital will have a very difficult time to recruit another ENT to work there given this case even though the ENT was ultimately found blameless.

Read More

Problem with Medical Protocols (and Lawsuits Because of Them)

Over the past decade working in hospitals, I've seen the proliferation of "established procedures and protocols" for literally everything under the sun...

• Chest Pain Protocol
• Discharge Protocol
• Pneumonia Protocol
• Stroke Protocol
etc, etc, etc

Protocols are essentially standing orders that are supposed to be implemented whenever a given medical situation occurs. It is supposed to follow best evidence-based practices and make it easy for healthcare personnel know what to do without thinking to hard (akin to a checklist a pilot performs before flying to ensure they did not forget something).

The problem with protocols are that it can be made so detailed as to become worthlessly bloated. To use an analogy, take the protocol, "Going Shopping Protocol."

Protocol A (Simple):
1) Make grocery list
2) Drive to supermarket
3) Pickup and purchase items on grocery list
4) Come back home

Protocol B (Detailed):
1) Pickup #2 pencil
2) Sharpen pencil to appropriate point using pencil sharpener model 15-231
3) Test pencil to ensure proper writing ability
4) Obtain 3x4 inch index card
5) Write shopping item #1 on index card using pencil (from steps #1-3)
etc, etc, etc

Now when dealing with something as complex as medicine, protocols can be a godsend or hopeless depending on how it is written and who uses it.

And, that's where protocols become problematic.

Make a protocol too detailed, and it becomes bloated to the point of being useless, especially when dealing with time-sensitive medical problems.

Take for example something as simple as "Chest Pain Protocol." Orders for EKG, aspirin, IV fluids, sublingual nitroglycerin, and morphine seem obvious (assumption being heart attack), but what if we are dealing with a 10 years old child who got punched in the stomach by a bully? What about a stabbing into the chest?

Does that mean there needs to be multiple branch-points explicitly addressed in the protocol to handle every single possible scenario of chest pain under the sun at any age for every possible scenario?

Clearly, the answer is "NO"!

So protocols are made with several assumptions:

1)  A general level of medical competence of healthcare professionals
2 ) Healthcare professionals are already familiar with a given protocol and knows when to appropriately activate it
3) Protocols are deliberately made to be not too specific as it is understood that there is variability in the care of patients. Protocols can not and should not be applied cookie cutter to every patient as there are nuances that the protocol leaves to the judgement of the doctor.

Unfortunately, by making protocols to generalized, it does open up the possibility of lawsuits.

Take an ongoing case in Georgia where the medical director of an emergency room is being sued for professional negligence in the death of a woman from a heart attack... because of a chest pain protocol he wrote. Note that this medical director NEVER provided any direct medical care, did not have an established patient-physician relationship, and was not even in the hospital when the woman came into the ER. [link]

So is the solution to avoid having any protocols in place to avoid lawsuits? Sorry... NOT having a protocol in place can also be subject to a lawsuit. In 2000, a hospital was sued for either failing to follow established anesthesia procedures or protocols or failing to have any established procedures or protocols in place. [link]

So what to do?

Well, getting sued is a risk that is inherent to the medical field, especially whenever there is a bad outcome.

As such, the default action taken by physicians and hospital administrators are to minimize or spread the risk. How?

• Have as many different physicians write-up a given protocol that is signed off by everybody (spreading the risk)
• Avoid positions of responsibility (default scapegoat for lawsuits)
• Involve many physicians in the care of a patient (spreading or transferring the risk)
• Have protocols, but do not depend on them (clinical judgement trumps protocol).
• Have MANY documented training sessions on how protocols are to be used and discuss weaknesses and strengths of them

References:
UPSON COUNTY HOSP., INC. v. HEAD 540 S.E.2d 626 (2000) 246 Ga. App. 386 UPSON COUNTY HOSPITAL, INC. v. HEAD. No. A00A1601. Court of Appeals of Georgia. October 13, 2000.

Gaulden v. Green, No. A12A1872 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2012)

Read More

Financial Issues with Emergency Room Specialist Care

Imagine this scenario... A young child is playing in the yard when her pet dog bites her face. Bleeding, the child is rushed to the emergency room and the emergency room doctor offers to suture up the child's face.

The next question a parent will probably ask (or demand) is the desire for a plastic surgeon to suture the face instead of the emergency room doctor.

As such, the plastic surgeon is called in and sutures up the face beautifully.

The child and family goes home and that's when the financial nightmare begins...

The plastic surgeon bills the family for $2,000 for services rendered in the emergency room. The plastic surgeon does NOT participate with their health insurance plan and being a non-participating provider, the bill for care provided is directly sent to the child's family.

Here is a New York Times article describing this situation.

Outrageous?

Unfortunately, it is not unusual... and there are lawsuits now pending among insurance companies, specialist physicians, as well as even against patients regarding who pays the medical bills.

Here is an article portraying a hand surgeon who has sued numerous patients regarding just this scenario. Most specialists will either write-off or accept any amount after being sent to collection.

Background

If a patient has a medical problem, a call to the medical office is made to see the doctor. However, before the appointment is made, both the patient and office checks to ensure the visit will be covered by insurance. If not, a call to a different medical office is made until one that participates with the patient's insurance is found. However, if the patient decides to see a physician who does NOT participate with his health insurance company, he will be responsible for the entire bill (the office visit will not be covered by insurance).

The same is true for outside specialists called into the emergency room. These outside medical specialists participate only with certain insurances. As such, if they perform services on a patient whose health insurance does not cover that particular medical specialist, the patient will get the entire bill.

Emergency room care IS covered by insurance... because it is an "emergency," but services performed ONLY by the emergency room staff applies. NOT services by outside specialists called in.

What to Do?

So what is a patient to do in order to avoid a surprising large bill?

Ideally, have all services performed by emergency room staff and avoid services by outside specialists. If it is not life-threatening (like a facial dog-bite... ugly, but not life-threatening), have the emergency room doctor do all he can. Than follow-up as an outpatient with a specialist who participates with your health insurance plan.

If an outside specialist MUST be called in, ask whether this specialist participates with your health insurance plan. If not, ask how much the specialist will charge for services rendered. Be aware, if the outside specialist actually comes into the hospital, a consultation fee will be charged (typically around $100-$200). If a procedure is performed, a procedure charge will be present (hundreds to thousands of dollars).

A patient can request whether there is a different doctor who can be contacted should the specialist on-call not participate with his/her health insurance plan. However, be aware that typically only ONE doctor per specialty is on-call to the emergency room at any given time and as such, an alternative doctor may not be available.

Once you are aware of the charges, you as the patient needs to decide whether to proceed with specialist care or not.

Be aware that the insurance coverage issues also applies for specialist consultations during a hospitalization and not just in the emergency room.

Bottom Line

Simply going to the emergency room does not mean all medical services will be covered by insurance, especially services provided by a medical specialist.

If specialist care is required in the emergency room, just ask whether the specialist participates with your health insurance plan, because if not, be aware that you directly will get a bill.

That's just how the medical system is set up currently.

Read More