More

Emergency Room Doctors Say They Order Tests Out Of Fear, New Survey Shows

Emergency Care Reform

First Posted: 05/25/11 06:21 PM ET Updated: 07/25/11 06:12 AM ET

In the past, when children with minor head injuries arrived in his emergency room, Dr. Arlo Weltge almost always ordered CT scans. The Texas-based ER doc says it didn't matter if the patients were alert and walking around, or even if he felt certain that the injuries were minor -- he ran the tests for fear of being sued.

Weltge is not alone. According to a recent survey of more than 1,700 emergency room doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), 53 percent of respondents said the main reason they conduct the number of tests they do is fear of lawsuits. Another 44 percent said that very fear was the biggest hindrance to cutting emergency department costs.

The issue is not strictly financial. In addition to driving up costs, many physicians believe that medical imaging tests have potential long-term repercussions on patients' health.

"We do a lot of these tests to cover ourselves that then give people an awful lot of radiation," said Dr. Sandra Schneider, president of ACEP. "We have to err on the side of the test, which could be harmful in the long term."

Indeed, numerous studies have highlighted the potential dangers of too much radiation exposure from medical imaging. A 2009 report from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements estimated that exposure to ionizing radiation across the U.S. has increased six-fold since 1980, and around half of that increase stemmed from CT scans. (CT scans combine a series of X-ray views and expose patients to more radiation than plain X-rays.) An estimate in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggested that 29,000 future cancers could be related to CT scans performed in the U.S. in 2007 alone.

Groups like the American Association of Physicists emphasize that the risks associated with medical imaging radiation are small but do exist, which is why a recent report concluded that "CT examinations should be performed only when a net patient benefit is anticipated." And that, ACEP argues, is not always the case, particularly when ER doctors order such tests out of fear.

This week, ACEP led hundreds of emergency room physicians, including Schneider and Weltge (ACEP's council speaker), to Capitol Hill to push for medical liability reform. The organization backs two legislative efforts, H.R. 5 and H.R. 157, both of which aim to institute medical liability reform measures.

In a press release, ACEP emphasized the issue of CT scans, calling for doctors who stick to guidelines developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (which suggest limiting the number of head CT scans) in order to be protected against litigation.

"Fewer head CTs will mean that physicians miss maybe one percent of serious head bleeds," Schneider said in the release. "So a small percentage of people with head bleeds will be missed, and there are no liability protections for those physicians who may be sued as a result."

ACEP also drew attention to the efforts of states like Texas, where a 2003 tort reform included measures such as capping non-economic damages, such as emotional distress, at $250,000.

Weltge said his state's reforms have made a major difference in how he practices medicine, a difference he believes directly affects his patients' health.

"Now if a young patient comes in with what is essentially a bonked head, I feel like I can have a reasonable discussion with the parents without feeling pressured to order a test," he said. "That's a very real thought that has gone through my head at least twice while seeing patients in the last week."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

In the past, when children with minor head injuries arrived in his emergency room, Dr. Arlo Weltge almost always ordered CT scans. The Texas-based ER doc says it didn't matter if the patients were ale...
In the past, when children with minor head injuries arrived in his emergency room, Dr. Arlo Weltge almost always ordered CT scans. The Texas-based ER doc says it didn't matter if the patients were ale...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 361
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
03:29 PM on 06/09/2011
How about this situation:

ER ordered CT of brain, cervical spine, chest, abdomen and pelvis for person with minor accident one week ago, now being seen in ER for the first time, with complaints of headache and dizziness.

When ER doctor asked why so many studies, he stated they were ordered by triage nurse before he even saw patient.
photo
UsedtobeAlongst
Correcting the Left's hypocrisy
11:31 AM on 06/10/2011
If the patient didn't get them- he would be back a few days later demanding them because his lawyer told him he "needed them".
VA Jill
Retired RN, Army mom. Bring the troops home!
11:17 AM on 06/01/2011
You forgot to mention one other factor....lousy triage. Last summer I went to the local urgent care center with a bad headache, malaise, and a fever; the fever was the only reason I went in the first place as I rarely run one. They did not take my insurance and sent me to the hospital ED which, they said, had a "fast track" for cases such as mine. On getting there, I was refused the "fast track" SOLELY because of my age. (I am over 60 but have no major health problems save moderate hypertension) They did not tell me that directly but I heard the discussion between the triage nurse and the doc working fast track. I was there for 6 1/2 hours. The ER doctor wanted to order a CT scan of my head just because of the headache; I told him no way. It was only at my insistence that they did a flu screen and a strep swab, both of which turned out to be negative but are cheaper than a CT. Finally I was diagnosed with "viral syndrome." given something for the headache, and sent home. All that could have been avoided with proper triage. The whole point of a fast track is that if that doc spots something out of the ordinary s/he can divert a patient to the regular ER. I'm still annoyed with my local hospital and will go there only in case of dire necessity.
04:20 PM on 05/30/2011
Too much technology dependency
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
07:45 AM on 05/27/2011
I am betting that they do this because they make more money when they do more tests. As someone who was sent home from an ER with a clean bill of health and a massively broken neck that was later discovered by my chiropractor and who didn't sue, I will tell you that the fear of suing is blown out of proportion. I also know that they make money on tests
06:07 AM on 05/29/2011
ER docs make NO money on scans. NONE. You really have no insight into how this really works... One ER doc told me that the best malpractice insurance he can get is a CT scan, and best of all, it costs him nothing. I asked another what it would take to get him to order fewer CT scans and he said he was going to continue to do it. His rationale - He said he would see 30,000 head bumps in his professional career and one of them would have an epidural bleed. If he didn't scan everyone and that head bump was in the first year of his practice, his career was over. I thought he was being paranoid, but what is important was that HE didn't think he was, he felt he was being perfectly rational and protecting himself.
- an experienced radiologist
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
08:12 AM on 05/29/2011
There is a parallel here. He thought his career would be over with one missed bump and you talked with one doc and draw conclusions about the whole profession. Money is made by doing 'procedures'; much more money than by doing diagnosis and writing prescriptions. Where I live, we have the best hospitals in the country, whatever that means. The ER docs work within their own private practices. That was also the case of the Radiologist who sent me home with an untreated broken neck. The hospitals and the practices have contracts that days how the proceeds are split and that surely included Cat scan profits. The docs either get money directly or like junior lawyers are expected to bring in a certain amount of money, and that is a huge pressure, as big as worrying about malpractice. When my broken neck was discovered, a week later by my chiropractor, I wanted to meet with the doc, I needed to know that this was just a human error that anyone could have done, once. The practice fought our meeting, but eventually he came to my house, alone. We talked for two hours, at the end of which I was convinced that he wasn't some addict who was going to hurt someone else. That is how it should be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
isis
I, Robot
07:43 AM on 05/27/2011
Most of us have car insurance because we might make a mistake. I find car insurance to be overly expensive. I would like a cap on how much I have to pay if I cause an accident.
06:11 PM on 05/28/2011
The Texas (and other 'Cap' laws) only affect punitive damages, not medical costs, lost wages, etc. Why should a doctor be essentially punished for making a mistake (do you want to buy a million dollars of car insurance and start having punitive damages for car accidents?)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
isis
I, Robot
10:18 AM on 05/29/2011
What I can't get my head around is this. As a laboratory scientist I have all sorts of safety rules and protocols and supervision. People have been fired for opened toed shoes, not wearing safety goggles etc. I go to a hospital and it appears to be understaffed and doctors are on a schedule and rushed. Most care is done by CNAs with an enormous patient load so they are on triage mode. It is "mistakes" waiting to happen.
04:20 AM on 05/27/2011
One more reason why health INSURANCE should be handled by the government. If America had one massive health insurance company instead of thousands of small ones, that insurance company could tell doctors we won't pay for that, if the patient wants it, no coverage. And it should not be capricious, it should be the same rule for everyone. One massive insurance company can do this, hundreds of them cannot.
12:40 AM on 05/27/2011
Radiation is harmful at any dose. The less you get over your life time the better.

When you really need it... it may save your life.
10:24 AM on 05/28/2011
Thank you Kenz300 for a great comment that is based in fact.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:12 PM on 05/26/2011
Improvements in CT technology over the past 15 years have provided tremendous benefit to patients, including innovations that have reduced the radiation dose required for each scan and the additions of new and robust safeguards to prevent human error. Still, ensuring the appropriate use of CT scans is critical to reducing unnecessary exposure to medical radiation, which is why the Medical Imaging
06:14 PM on 05/28/2011
There is no benefit in radiating people with minor head injuries. It is not uncommon for patients to have not one but multiple CT scans when seen in the ER for minor injuries.
photo
UsedtobeAlongst
Correcting the Left's hypocrisy
11:36 AM on 06/10/2011
You would be suprised how many "minor injuries" I'vs seen that had a positive CT scan finding of subdural bleeding or a fractured neck not seen on a regular neck Xray.
12:03 PM on 05/26/2011
My family has experienced this defensive medicine. It's real. It's one reason medical care costs are high.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
caneca
12:37 PM on 05/26/2011
Anyone who has received medical treatment in America during the past 20-30 years has probably experienced it.
11:52 AM on 05/26/2011
So, exactly how many prospective doctors are turned away from OB-GYN with stories like this 58 million dollar verdict. Good luck with those midwives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/malpractice-record_n_867439.html
12:23 PM on 05/26/2011
People forget that Dr.'s are HUMAN and they make MISTAKES! they are not God. People are too sue happy these days! $hit happens! Kids are born with disabilities...its a shame, but why ruin someone else's life too? $58 million? really??? Jurors should be ashamed of themselves!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
isis
I, Robot
07:37 AM on 05/27/2011
My uncle was a doctor and when a child was disabled by someone in his practice making a human error and the family got a large settlement you know what he said. he said that the money they got up would never make up for their pain. That is the kind of doctor I want.
11:35 AM on 05/26/2011
Why not just disclose the risks to patients and let them decide? Or better yet, tattoo
o a giant red "I" [for "Idiot"] on the forehead of every doctor who exposes his patients to unnecessary radiation in order to cover his own a**, so his patients can ask for another doctor.
photo
UsedtobeAlongst
Correcting the Left's hypocrisy
11:37 AM on 06/10/2011
There would be no other doctors left....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FiredUpRTG
Don't start no stuff; won't be no stuff…
11:30 AM on 05/26/2011
I don't care, but if I come in to see a doctor about an ailment, give me every test so nothing is missed and I don't have to come back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
caneca
12:39 PM on 05/26/2011
Expensive tests can not and should not be used as screening tests any time a patient feels like it. This is one of the reasons driving our helath care costs through the roof. We do not have unlimited health care resources. We have to learn to use what we have in a wiser way.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FiredUpRTG
Don't start no stuff; won't be no stuff…
01:16 PM on 05/26/2011
I disagree. If the symptoms show something serious, test the heck out of me. There has got to be a way. No one should come between the doctor and me. That's what private insurance companies try to do; play doctor to someone they don't know so the CEO can use the money kept from saving me to build an addition to his mistress' country home.
06:17 PM on 05/28/2011
There are lots of tests that can be done. Some are harmful, some painful, many are expensive. Go to a good doctor who can take a good history, do a good exam and come up with a reasonable differential diagnosis. Then you won't need 'every test'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
08:18 AM on 05/29/2011
Fanned and faved!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ARTIST50
Vote Obama 2012
11:30 AM on 05/26/2011
I was recently in the hospital for pneumonia and ask that they run no unnecessary tests because I didn't have insurance. One of the older doctors (about forty) who hadn't been there ordered a CAT scan and later in the day they came to get me for the test. I used to work in an ER and they cost about $2400 but that was 3 years ago and i knew this was coming right out of my pocket. He convinced me there were some spots on my lungs that needed a closer look (cancer scare) so I agreed. But I think this is just routine and few people question them. If no one had insurance the amount of testing would be greatly reduced!

Luckily I was in a not-for-profit hospital and they were very nice to me. They said when I recieved my bill to bring it to them with my tax returns and they would reduce it and put it on a no interest payment plan.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
07:54 AM on 05/27/2011
And what we really need is more (or all) not for profit hospitals.
06:22 PM on 05/28/2011
There is no such thing as a 'not-for-profit' hospital - the correct label is 'tax-exempt' meaning they pay no taxes on profits (with the understanding that they 'contribute' back to the community.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
isis
I, Robot
11:02 AM on 05/26/2011
A few thoughts. If there are too many CT scans for sinus headaches, why don't doctors speak out against air pollution, particulates and other things that harm sinuses? Also, most malpractice claims are because the person contracted an infection or had a problem in the hospital that was caused by negligence. I had a friend who died from a botched surgery and I am facebook friends with her lawyer and that is what they lawyer is saying. That the biggest cause of malpractice is health care professionals not washing up. They really should not wear street clothes and should always wash their hands. Hospitals should provide scrubs that are sanitized. This should not be seen as a problem that patients create.
MommyMD
MD, Professor, Mom
08:16 PM on 05/26/2011
We DO speak out on air pollution, but don't have much time...you know, a patient every 10 minutes. We DO "wash up:" any decent hospital has strict policies regarding inpatient hospital infections. We CANNOT wear scrubs outside the hospital. WE ARE EXTREMELY AWARE OF IATROGENIC (hospital caused) INFECTIONS. Are you aware of new national medicare laws requiring tracking of hospital-caused infections? We DO NOT blame patients for these problems. We blame lawyers and our broken health care system.
When you get sick, perhaps you should seek medical care from your friends' lawyer via facebook.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
isis
I, Robot
08:43 PM on 05/26/2011
That might be true of you but it is not like that where I live. The doctors are silent on environmental issues and scrubs are not left in the hospital. No need to blame lawyers. A lawyer did not kill my friend. Neither did you. But before she died, she needed a lawyer. Insurance drops you after a while you know. ps-- Studies have shown that people are much less likely to sue if they see their doctors as nice people. .
11:49 PM on 05/29/2011
MommyMD, what is the basis of your blaming lawyers? Cases without merit are won by the doctors. That has been well-established in many studies found in the medical journals. Lawyers are simply trying to help people who have been injured through negligent conduct. As you may know, the number of medical malpractice cases have been declining every year for the past seven years. A very small percentage of people injured by medical negligence are compensated. When someone is injured by medical negligence, that person ought to be compensated, don't you think? Isn't that the just thing to do?
04:22 AM on 05/27/2011
A simple xray, if done properly by an experienced tech, will show sinuses, no need for a CT scan!
photo
time2impeach
Send Justice CT packin'
10:35 AM on 05/26/2011
The big problem here is twofold and intertwined:

Doctors, for the most part, run exhaustive and extensive tests because they fear getting sued.

Patients (or survivors) sue, for the most part, because they have no other recourse.

When a middle-income head-of-household dies, a lawsuit will almost automatically follow. Why? Because that household,. suddenly without a primary income source, needs something. Most people do not have adequate disability and life insurances.

And that lawsuit will almost invariably pay out something, usually in a settlement. In depositions, the doctor will be grilled to find out what possible remedy they might not have sought, in an effort to place fault and increase size of the settlement.

What is tragic here is that sometimes people die unexpectedly. It may well be no one's fault. But someone will pay for it, because someone has to, and a vicious cycle is created.

It is a mightily screwed up system we have established, with maximizing profit the motivating factor for insurance companies, which drives hospitals to submit ever-increasing volumes of claims because of ever reducing amounts of payouts, under-insured patients reduced to finding redress in the legal system, and doctors compelled to exhaust every long-shot possibility before declaring a patient lest they find themselves judged at fault.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Margo Arrowsmith
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
08:27 AM on 05/29/2011
Wow, note how you forgot to mention that doctors actually commit malpractice. But you are correct the system is messed up. We need the public option and a sense of public concern. I do agree with you that Clarence Thomas should be impeached. This business with him not recusing himself on cases that enrich him and his wife is blatant misconduct.
photo
time2impeach
Send Justice CT packin'
10:57 PM on 05/30/2011
My words: "Doctors, for the most part, run exhaustive and extensive tests because they fear getting sued."

My implication: There are doctors -- a distinct minority -- who abuse the system, milking if for money. I am quite aware that such doctors exist, but I am confident, from personal experience, that such doctors are the distinct minority. The VAST majority of doctors devote their lives to treating their patients. And while there are a large number of doctors who have a bad "bed-side manner," and don't relate well to patients, that does not diminish the devotion that have to the health and welfare of their patients.
11:57 PM on 05/29/2011
time2impeach, your concept of the legal system is incorrect. Claims without merit are actively defended by the malpractice insurance companies. Lawyers do not pursue cases without merit because the lawyer will lose his or her shirt if a case is lost. The doctors win the overwhelming majority of cases that are tried. Insurers do not settle cases lacking merit, they defend them. The fact that cases are vigorously defended is shown by the insurance companies' data showing that 90% of medical malpractice claims are closed with no payment.
photo
time2impeach
Send Justice CT packin'
10:53 PM on 05/30/2011
With all due respect, I speak from personal experience. While your numbers may be correct with regard to ALL cases, when a death is involved, regardless of the merit of the case, almost invariably some payout is generated.

And -- believe it or not -- there are attorneys out there who base a significant part of their practice on pushing such cases to the limit, milking insurance companies for wrongful death settlements, when there is little of no fault to be had.

And, as I say -- this knowledge comes from personal experience.

And, as I say -- this condition is due to the fact there for survivors, there's little alternative to fill the financial void created by the death.
11:36 PM on 05/30/2011
time2impeach, here is another example. I lost a case three years ago in which a 54-year-old principal of a Catholic grammer school died a sudden cardiac death after going to the emergency department and telling the doctor that she was having heart palpitations, shortness of breath, and dizziness. She had to stop three times walking down a flight of stairs because of her shortness of breath. The doctor discharged her from the emergency room rather than keeping her in the hospital and working her up. She died two days later. The jury let the doctor and his insurance company off.