It was the nurse's second error that caused significant harm. Instead of following the physician's order for a zero basal rate, she administered morphine at a basal rate of 4 milligrams per hour. Three other nurses and several people working in the hospital pharmacy did not spot the error, and it went uncorrected for 15 hours.
Around midnight, about eight hours after the loading dose had been administered and the patient had received 4 milligrams per hour, she began vomiting and continued to do so intermittently for the next several hours. By 6:30 a.m., the patient had received 60 milligrams of morphine through the erroneous basal rate delivery of the drug.
Between 7 a.m. and 7:15 a.m., the surgeon examined the patient, who was still being administered morphine at the basal rate of 4 milligrams per hour, and, noting that she was too drowsy, had the PCA removed. At that point, the surgeon believed that the patient had had only 7.2 milligrams of morphine through PCA and that the order for a zero basal rate had been followed. The morphine infusion was stopped at 7:30 a.m.
Around 9 a.m., the surgeon examined the patient after she complained of lightheadedness, breathing difficulties and extreme confusion. By 9:25 a.m., the patient's respiratory rate had dropped from 14 to 6 breaths per minute and her oxygen saturation rate had fallen to 70 percent whereas normal oxygen saturation is in the high 90s.
The surgeon, suspecting a morphine overdose, administered a drug to counteract an overdose, particularly the side effect of respiratory depression, which restricts oxygen supply to the brain and can cause permanent damage. The patient was given a second dose of the drug to counteract a morphine overdose. At 10 a.m. the patient was still vomiting, was having problems with short-term memory and was confused.
A neurologist examined the patient and concluded that her acute amnesia was caused by cerebral hypoxia oxygen deprivation to the brain.
The patient was discharged six days after surgery but underwent outpatient treatment for her brain injury. She continues to suffer from short-term memory loss.
As a result of the brain damage, the patient experiences difficulty with the normal activities of daily living and can no longer work. She has been advised not to drive, forgets people and places and has trouble managing her own medications. The brain injury also makes the patient more easily frustrated and depressed.
The patient and her husband filed suit against the hospital in March 2007, alleging medical malpractice and loss of consortium. The patient claimed that the hospital breached the standard of care by administering morphine in a dose far exceeding the surgeon's order; that the nurses failed to verify the correct dosage of morphine and knew or should have known that the amount prescribed posed a high risk of overdose; that the pharmacy's employees and agents did not attempt to verify the dosage was safe; and that the hospital and its employees failed to properly monitor the patient for dosage errors and recognize the symptoms of an overdose.
At mediation, the parties agreed to settle the case. Without admitting liability, the hospital agreed to pay the patient $850,000 about $15,000 less than the cap on damages in this case.
Defense counsel, whose identity is also subject to the confidentiality agreement, verified the settlement details, noting that, "defendant would have accepted responsibility at trial."
■Facts of the Case
■Type of Action: Medical malpractice
■Court: Adair County Circuit Court
■Case Number/Date: Confidential/Aug. 28, 2008
■Verdict or Settlement: $850,000 settlement
■Plaintiffs' Experts: Thomas Ireland, St. Louis (economist); Dr. Michael E. Mullins, St. Louis (medical toxicology); Daniel Orme, Columbia (psychologist); Robert Paul, St. Louis (neuropsychologist)
■Defendants' Experts: None disclosed
■Special Damages: $80,723 medical expenses; $434,000 lost wages
■Caption: Jane Doe, et ux. v. confidential hospital, et al.
■Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Paul J. Passanante and Dawn M. Mefford, Simon Passanante, St. Louis
■Defendants' Attorneys: Confidentialakes it easier," Mefford said. "You never know what a jury's going to do."