Thursday, December 18, 2014

Fun Video Blog Break: Tim Hawkins

My favorite comedian is Tim Hawkins. There're tons of videos of him on You Tube. If you need a good laugh, check out his other videos.


Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Fun Video Blog Break: Jimmy Fallon Hashtags "WorstGiftEver"


Starting off our funny blog break is Jimmy Fallon. If you're not watching the show, he does a weekly hastag. This one is #WortstGiftEver.

What was your worst Christmas gift ever?





Thursday, December 11, 2014

Author Beware: Medical Students

I've blogged here a lot about the trouble many authors have with scope of practice issues. Scope of practice is what the licensing board says you can and can't do to a patient. Every licensed healthcare professional has a defined scope of practice. For nurses, it is managed by their State Board of Nursing. For doctors, it is the Board of Healing Arts.

You can find other posts I did about scope of practice herehere and here.

I recently came across a novel written by a doctor that had an interesting medical scenario. In short, a medical student was running amok killing patients by overdosing them on potassium. Below are a few highlighted portions from the novel. I'm using asterisks instead of characters names to further disguise the story to protect the author.

This portion is written from the medical student's (the killer's) POV:

I was helping them (nurses) with their work. I've fixed IV pumps, drawn blood, placed catheters, even changed bedpans. It's got me into their good graces, and a lot of them now pretty much trust me with anything. Like giving medications. 

They'd pull the IV bag from the electronic medication dispenser, log it into the system, hand it to me, and go back to doing the twenty other things they were trying to do at the same time. They never gave me or my poor little bag of potassium a second thought. 

And why not? They'd seen me give IV medications to patients hundreds of times. Not one of the-- not a single one-- even bothered to check to see if the patient actually needed potassium, much less confirm that I'd actually given it."

Honestly, it's hard to know where to start with the medical inaccuracies this small piece of fiction highlights.

1. A medical student is not licensed healthcare provider. Therefore, they practice under someone else's license. They are managed by their attending physician or resident. They are not monitored by nursing. A nurse is not going to let a medical student do these things to her patient. The most a medical student does is obtain a patient history, do a physical exam, and observe procedures by other physicians. If this author had made the medical student a resident-- the scenario would be a little more plausible.

2. Every nurse is not that stupid. Sure, one nurse allowing a medical student to give her potassium I could believe. But, as in the novel, up to fifty? Remember, the nurse is likely more liable than the medical student under this circumstance. These nurses would all be fired. Nurses are not that blase about their licenses. Without one, even a license with a minor mark, and that nurse will not be working in nursing ever again. Medical students are learning. A nurse's job is to protect her patient. We don't trust medical students to be competent in what they're doing for that reason alone.

3. The author also misses another layer of protection. Medical dispensing machines are another layer of protection. Hospital medications are approved for dispensing by the hospital pharmacist. So, a pharmacist can look up a patient's lab results and check whether or not they need the potassium as well. All these medication orders on patients that don't need potassium is going to raise some serious alarms. Can you override the medication dispensing system? Yes, but you better have a good reason. Many hospitals have removed concentrated forms of IV potassium because an error could be so potentially deadly to the patient. Also, patients who receive a bolus dose of IV potassium need to be placed on an ECG tracing (or continuous heart monitoring.) In this instance, they are generally in the ICU or on telemetry and not a basic med/surg unit.

The scenario could be plausible if written another way. Overall, the author needed a seasoned ICU nurse to review the manuscript.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Author Beware: Use of Electricity

Authors, television producers and scriptwriters are fascinated by the use of electricity. This is probably one of the most commonly abused medical scenarios in that it is rarely used correctly.

One of my most popular posts here at Redwood's was a post titled Shock Me To Death that highlights how electricity (or defibrillation) should be used.

I was reading a debut novel by a medical doctor and found many grievous errors around the use of electricity. Which distresses me because he also said he had a cardiologist review the manuscript. Seriously, I kind of want to know who that doctor is and what kind of training he had.

There was the usual error of shocking a flatlined patient or asystole. Remember, in order for electricity to work, there has to be some present. If a patient is flatlined, there is no disorganized cardiac rhythm to reset and so defibrillation is contraindicated in those patient scenarios.

Next error in this manuscript was cracking the sternum down the middle during compressions. For one, the sternum is extremely hard to fracture. It's designed to protect some very important organs. If the sternum is even slightly fractured, we know there have been extreme forces placed on that patient. So, to have mere hands fracture a sternum all the way down the middle is ludicrous. Remember, they saw this open for open heart surgery. Breaking ribs is very probably during CPR, but not the whole length of your sternum . . . sorry.

Last, and most creatively (as I'd never seen this error before), was the amount of electricity used in an ICD device (an implanted cardiac defibrillator.) ICD's are devices that are used to convert patients from lethal arrhythmias like v-fib and v-tach. They are not pacemakers-- which stimulate the heart to beat.

Whenever electrodes are placed near the heart, the amount of electricity used is very small. Think about it. When we shock you from the outside of your body, the electrical current has a lot of tissue to pass through to get to your heart. This is why we use more. When defebrillating someone-- it's in joules.

A pacemaker uses a lot less energy. Outside pacemaker use milliamps.

And here is the very interesting quote from a published novel:

"Cardiologists shock patients all the time under controlled conditions, remotely dumping up to 700V (volts) of juice directly in to the heart via the ICD."

Wow. That's just . . . overkill.

Just how lethal is 700 volts applied directly to the heart?

This site explains that 110V can kill you.

It's so egregious an error that I'm not quite sure what this author was thinking. It pains me more that he is an actual medical doctor. I even double checked the published manuscript (as I'd read a galley proof before) and the error was still present.

I think he needs a new cardiologist.