2024-10-30 12:10:00
The first section of the Litigation-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Xustiza of Galicia (TSXG) has condemned the Galician Health Service (Sergas) to compensate the partner of a man who died of a heart attack at the Lalín health center (Pontevedra) in September with 20,000 euros 2019. The victim, according to the sentence, had gone to the emergency room of the same center six hours earlier, but during the triage, carried out by an administrative officer, the victim had not informed the doctor of the reason for the request for immediate treatment – abdominal pain, testicular pain and nausea – and was sent to wait until a gap formed between the patients already mentioned. In the end, the man decided not to wait, to return home and go to the health center in the afternoon, by making an appointment, where he died.
The magistrates understand that there was a loss of opportunity resulting “from the failure of the administrative administration to communicate to the doctor the symptoms that the patient presented to make it possible for a medical evaluation of them to establish whether they were urgent or not”. effects of paying more immediate attention.” The Supreme Court of Galicia believes that “the opportunities or expectations for the patient would have been different” if instead of an administrative intervention it had been a doctor who assessed the patient’s situation. Therefore, in the face of this “uncertainty”, the doctrine of loss of opportunity applies, “which implies the deprivation of expectations or uncertainty in the outcome of having acted differently from how it was actually done”.
The judges consider it proven that the affected person went by his own means to the emergency room of the health facility, around 1.24 pm, and, after being sent to the waiting room because the doctor who was supposed to assist him was treating patients with an appointment scheduled, “tired of waiting, he reiterated the request for urgent care and, since it was not immediate, he made an appointment for that same afternoon, refusing the one offered at 3pm to take the one at 6.50pm.” When he was no longer in the centre, he was called for assistance at 2.48pm. In the afternoon the patient went directly to the waiting room and waited for the family doctor to call him to the office. It was then, according to the TSXG resolution, that he unexpectedly fainted at the health center. Although he received assistance at the time and was flown to an 061 helicopter, he died after 45 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitation.
The magistrates underline that “there was an act which constituted a loss of opportunity for the patient”, while underlining that “it cannot be ignored that the lack of immediate attention was motivated by the fact that the administrative staff who assisted him upon her arrival, the clinic, as she herself indicated, did not consider the patient’s condition serious, specifying that, in fact, despite noting the urgency of the emergency services, she did not even communicate the symptoms complained of to the doctor.” Therefore, they indicate that “perhaps, even if he did not evaluate them as serious, the doctor could have considered them differently (and more based on the patient’s medical history)”. The sentence is not final, since it is possible to appeal against it to the Supreme Court .
#TSXG #sentences #Sergas #pay #euros #loss #opportunity #suffered #patient #died #heart #attack #Lalín #health #center #CGPJ #Judiciary #Superior #Courts #Justice #TSJ #Galicia
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on the TSXG Ruling
Editor: Welcome to this special edition of Time.news. Today, we delve into a significant legal ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia that has captured public attention. Joining me is Dr. Clara Santiago, a legal expert in medical malpractice and patient rights. Dr. Santiago, thank you for being here.
Dr. Santiago: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss this important case.
Editor: Let’s get right into it. The court has ordered the Galician Health Service to compensate the family of a man who died from a heart attack after an alleged miscommunication during triage. Can you explain the key legal principle at play here?
Dr. Santiago: Certainly. The court’s decision hinges on the doctrine of “loss of opportunity.” This legal doctrine applies when a patient is deprived of a chance for a better outcome due to negligence — in this case, the failure to properly communicate urgent symptoms to a medical professional.
Editor: That’s a critical point. The court noted that the victim had presented with several alarming symptoms—abdominal pain, testicular pain, and nausea. How did the inadequate triage process play into the court’s decision?
Dr. Santiago: The court recognized that the initial assessment conducted by an administrative officer instead of a doctor limited the patient’s chances for timely medical intervention. If a doctor had evaluated him based on his symptoms, the response might have been significantly different, potentially altering the tragic outcome.
Editor: It sounds like this situation raises serious questions about how triage is conducted in emergency rooms. Was there anything in the ruling that suggested changes might be needed in hospital protocols?
Dr. Santiago: Yes, the ruling implicitly critiques the current system by emphasizing the need for medical professionals, rather than administrative staff, to handle triage assessments for patients presenting with serious symptoms. The judges highlighted the risk of miscommunication and the consequential loss of life as a result of systemic inadequacies.
Editor: Considering the court awarded the family €20,000, do you believe this amount is sufficient for the damages suffered?
Dr. Santiago: Monetary compensation is important for the family, but it often falls short of truly addressing their loss. While the sum serves as recognition of the wrong done, it cannot replace the life lost. This case, however, might promote broader discussions on accountability and changes in medical practice.
Editor: Speaking of broader implications, what does this case mean for future medical malpractice claims, particularly in Spain?
Dr. Santiago: This ruling could set a precedent for how similar cases are approached in the future. It reinforces the idea that communication is critical in healthcare settings and that responsibilities must rest with qualified medical professionals to ensure patient safety. It may encourage other families to pursue justice when they feel that negligence has impacted care.
Editor: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Santiago. As we wrap up, what would you hope is the takeaway from this case for both healthcare providers and patients?
Dr. Santiago: I hope this case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication in healthcare. For providers, it underscores the need for effective triage protocols that prioritize patient assessment by qualified personnel. For patients, it’s essential to advocate for their health and to seek clarity about their treatment options, especially in emergency situations.
Editor: Well said. Thank you again for joining us today, Dr. Santiago, and shedding light on this important ruling in Galicia.
Dr. Santiago: Thank you for having me. I hope it leads to positive changes in medical practice.
Editor: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. Stay with us for more discussions that matter.