.
Feedback

Peninsula Hospitals Fined for Endangering Patients

Accusations include leaving a surgical sponge inside a patient and 'causing a woman's bladder to explode.'

The California Department of Public Health Thursday announced administrative penalties totaling $375,000 against six Bay Area hospitals for non-compliance with licensing requirements that jeopardized the health and safety of patients.

The hospitals were among 14 in the state that were fined a total of $825,000. The hospitals can appeal the penalties.

Kaiser Foundation Hospital in South San Francisco was fined $75,000 for not following surgical policies and procedures that caused a patient to undergo a second surgery to remove a foreign object. San Jose Mercury News reports the "foreign object" was a surgical sponge left inside the patient. It was the
hospital's second administrative penalty.

Kaiser Foundation Hospital in San Francisco also was fined $100,000 for failing to ensure the health and safety of a patient by not following polices and procedures regarding self-administered bedside medications. It was the hospital's third administrative penalty.

Kaiser Foundation Hospital spokeswoman Melinda Skeath, executive director of Quality and Regulatory Services, said the medication administration policies at the San Francisco Medical Center were immediately revised and a detailed policy was developed regarding the use of self-administered insulin pumps in the hospital.

"We trained our staff on these procedures and monitor their adherence," Skeath said in a statement.

At the South San Francisco Medical Center, improvements were made in the processes to avoid retained foreign objects, and peri-operative staff was re-educated on certain policies, Skeath said.

"In addition, the medical center conducted a separate surgical safety course, focused on retained foreign object prevention strategies, attended by more than 70 surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses and other clinical staff from the operating room," Skeath said.

Skeath said Kaiser hospitals continually invest in equipment designed to enhance patient safety, such as surgical equipment with fewer pieces and sponges that can be seen on surgical X-rays to reduce the possibility of retained foreign objects.

"Patient safety is our utmost priority at Kaiser Permanente," Skeath said.

Menlo Park Surgical Hospital in Menlo Park was fined $50,000 for not following established surgical policies and procedures. San Jose Mercury News reports it was a "botched exam" that caused a patient's bladder "to explode." It was the hospital's first administrative penalty.

Stanford Hospital in Stanford was fined $50,000 for failing to follow polices and procedures relating to tracheostomy care. It was the hospital's first penalty.

Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco was fined $50,000 because a patient underwent a second surgery to remove a foreign object. It was the hospital's first penalty.

St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco received its first penalty for failing to ensure the health and safety of a patient during a transfer.

Dee Mostofi, director of marketing and communications for Saint Francis Memorial Hospital and St. Mary's Medical Center said "both hospitals take these matters very seriously."

"In each separate case, we conducted thorough investigations and are working closely with the medical staff, patient care team and hospital leadership, as well as with CDPH to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again," Mostofi said.

Mostofi said the hospitals will not discuss the specifics of the patients' care because of patient privacy laws.

Under legislation that took effect on Jan. 1, 2009, the penalties are $50,000, $75,000 and $100,000 for first, second and third or more offenses.

California Department of Public Health (CDPH) spokesman Ralph Montano said there is a proposal to increase each level of fines by $25,000 next year and public hearings will be held on the issue.

During a conference call with the media this morning, Debby Rogers, deputy director of the CDPH's Center for Health Care Quality, said 235 administrative penalties were issued against 135 California Hospitals between 2007 and 2011.

She said the most common administrative penalty - 27 percent - was for leaving a foreign object, usually a sponge, in a patient during surgery. She said the risk of that happening is higher in obese patients who have major surgery.

Before today, the California Department of Public Health has collected $6,637,000 in administrative penalties, Rogers said.

Issuing public notices of the penalties assessed against the hospitals allows patients to talk to their health care providers about the systems in place to prevent such errors, Rogers said.

 

- Bay City News Service

 

For the latest in local news like this that's important to your health, follow Patch - and don't forget to sign up for our daily e-newsletter and breaking news alerts, delivered straight to your inbox.

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in Belmont--Sign up for our daily newsletter|Like Belmont|Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Start your own blog


Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in San Carlos--Sign up for our daily newsletter | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter| Start a blog



Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.