|
This Case Review May Be Cited As:
Lopez, Andrew. January 13, 2000. Cytomegalovirus Test Result,
Misinterpreted By Nurse. Did Negligence Lead to Child With Birth Defects?
Clinical Case of The Week.
Retrieved (insert date) from the World Wide Web:
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/clinical.cases/011300.htm
Summary: Nurses access and report confidential and sensitive test results
to case managers, insurance companies, physicians and other nurses as a
matter of course each day. It is commonly accepted that only a physician
can interpret what a test result implies for a specific patient. Nurses
by training have a general knowledge of basic lab values and what they may
represent. In this case, a pregnant woman with an active Cytomegalovirus
infection was misinformed by a nurse reporting a result. Had an accurate
explanation been given, a therapeutic abortion might have been performed.
"Cytomegalovirus is found all over the world, and it usually causes no
symptoms. In the U.S., one percent of infants are infected at birth; by
age six months, another 10-60 percent of infants will become infected,
most often from members of their own families. After their first birthday,
children tend to be most at risk for cytomegalovirus if they attend day
care, where rates of infection can be as high as 80 percent."1
The pregnant woman was in her first trimester. She took ill and
discovered that Cytomegalovirus was involved. The patient was aware that
Cytomegalovirus was associated with birth defects when contracted during a
pregnancy.
Fearing harm to her child, an obstetrician was consulted. The doctor had
her worked up to determine the nature and extent of the infection. The
results would show that the woman had an active infection with
Cytomegalovirus noted as the primary infecting organism.
"A newborn can be infected with Cytomegalovirus before birth - almost
always because the child's mother developed a first-time Cytomegalovirus
infection during pregnancy. Most of the time the infected infant shows no
symptoms at birth, but in 5-25 percent of cases, symptoms appear over the
next several years. These symptoms may include neurologic and
developmental problems, sight or hearing problems, and dental
abnormalities. Rarely, a newborn may have a life-threatening infection."2
Cytomegalovirus is a common virus most people are exposed to by the time
they are teenagers. It is usually a benign exposure, except in the case
of a pregnant woman or an immunosupressed patient (one with AIDS,
undergoing Chemotherapy, a recent Organ Transplant recipient, etc)
"Cytomegalovirus may cause serious infections in persons who have received
organ transplants, and in persons whose immune systems are weakened
(immunocompromised) for any reason, especially those with HIV - AIDS. In
persons with AIDS, cytomegalovirus may infect the retina of the eye and
causes blindness."1
In a woman with an active pregnancy, this finding would represent a
serious risk of birth defects in the developing fetus.
It is commonly known and recognized that an active CMV infection in a
pregnant woman can have devastating effects on the unborn child.
"Researchers have now determined that Congenital CMV is the most common
infectious cause of mental retardation in the United States. It leads to
more cases of mental disability each year than does the much better-known
Down Syndrome. Additionally, CMV holds another dubious distinction as the
leading cause of non-hereditary, sensorineural deafness. It is thought to
be a leading cause of deafness overall. Other common sequelae of
Congenital CMV include blindness, intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR),
jaundice, pneumonia, microcephaly and numerous others."2
It would have been prudent at this point, for the physician to discuss the
possibility of a child with birth defects being born. With this knowledge
the woman and her husband could have made an informed decision on whether
or not to continue the pregnancy.
Instead, the physician instructed a nurse to inform the patient of the
test result. Apparently there was no further follow up with the patient
by the physician to discuss the results.
Specifically, the physician did not ask the woman if she wished to
continue the pregnancy in lieu of the high risk of birth defects.
When the nurse spoke to the patient, she initially only told her the test
was "positive." The patient not understanding what that meant called the
nurse to question her again about it.
At this point, the nurse should have either asked the physician, or told
the patient she needed to talk to the doctor about what the test result
meant and how it might affect her pregnancy.
Instead, the nurse explained what she thought was correct to the patient.
The pregnant woman left the conversation believing that there was little
or no risk of birth defects to her child. The nurse had stated the
positive results of the test meant "she was immune" to CMV.
No mention of the high risk of birth defects due to the active
cytomegalovirus infection were disclosed during the conversation by the
nurse. No further discussion of the issue was documented between the
patient and the Obstetrician.
The pregnancy would continue to term. The child when born had severe
birth defects characteristic of a cytomegalovirus infection during
pregnancy.
The parents brought suit for wrongful birth against the clinic phyiscian,
nurse and agency contracting for the U.S. Air Force at the time.
The suit alleged that the birth of a severely deformed child could have
been prevented or at least anticipated. They argued that had an accurate
interpretation of the test result been presented, the high-risk pregnancy
would have been terminated.
The pregnant woman was prepared to request a therapeutic abortion when the
initial possibility of CMV infection and birth defects was made known to
her. Based on the misinformation presented by the nurse, the decision was
made to continue the pregnancy.
The child would require significant supervision and medical care
throughout it's life.
The Court award was in excess of $3,000,000.
Questions to be answered:
1. Was the nurse acting within her scope of practice when she
"interpreted" the test result as it applied to that patient's condition?
2. Was an accurate description provided to the pregnant woman of what the
test result meant and potential risks it could pose for her unborn child.
3. Was the physician ultimately responsible for informing the patient of
the potential consequences of continuing the pregnancy.
The nursing scope of practice as defined in The State Nurse Practice Acts
do not include "interpretation" of test results as they apply to patients.
That is within the scope of practice of a physician.
It might be acceptable for a nurse to tell a patient that a positive
pregnancy test in a female can signal either an active pregnancy, ectopic
or a testicular tumor in a male patient. It is not acceptable or within
the defined scope of a nurse's duties to state what that test result
indicates for a specific patient.
To state that a test result has a definite indication for a particular
patient requires the ability to diagnose a medical condition. That is not
the responsibility or domain of the practicing nurse.
Had the physician told the nurse to tell the patient that the positive CMV
infection had the potential for birth defects, the nurse would simply have
been passing the information on from the physician with his authorization.
The argument can be made that a practicing licensed nurse in an
Obstetrician's office is reasonably expected to know and be familiar with
CMV. This was not the case.
It seems the doctor assumed that the nurse was familiar with the disease
process and implications of a cytomegalovirus infection in a pregnant
woman.
That was not the situation in this case. The nurse went beyond telling
the patient that the test was "positive" by adding it MEANT that the
patient was immune to CMV.
It is clear that the nurse did not give an accurate interpretation of the
test result's true meaning. She stated that the test result meant the
patient was "immune" to CMV and that it would pose no threat to the
pregnancy.
This amounts to negligence in that the information given was incorrect and
even worse, misleading. It did not inform the pregnant woman of the
possible risks and consequences of continuing her pregnancy despite the
CMV infection.
The plaintiff justifiably focused the case on the nurse that gave the
results interpretation and the physician who had ordered the test.
The physician, aware of the pregnant woman's active CMV infection, left
the situation entirely in the hands of the nurse. Did he assume that the
nurse or patient was aware of what the test result might implicate?
Apparently yes.
Did the physician instruct the nurse to discuss the possibility of birth
defects or therapeutic abortion with the patient. If he had, it would be
expected that "something would have clicked" in the nurse's mind that the
test result meant something other than the patient was immune to CMV.
The nurse in this case relied on inaccurate information, perhaps on
memory. It may never have occurred to her that she should discuss the
possibility of severe birth defects in the unborn child with the mother.
The mother never had the option to consider the likelihood of her child
being born with deformities. Because neither the physican or the nurse
informed her properly, she could not discuss the issue with her husband.
Had they been aware that the pregnancy was high risk, it is likely they
would have chosen to end the pregnancy. This option was through
negligence, denied them.
Both the trial and appeals court in their rulings recognized:
"a wrongful birth suit is designed to compensate parents for being
deprived of the option of making an informed and meaningful decision
either to terminate the pregnancy or to give birth to a potentially
defective child."3
A nurse when unsure of a physician's order, it is the physician alone who
can clarify the situation with certainty. This can apply to the meaning
of a test result, why a patient is receiving a drug , undergoing a
procedure, owes a duty to the patient to clarify the situation with the
ordering physician. It is the physcian, not the nurse who is ultimately
responsible for clarifying orders and interpreting test results.
Related Link Sections:
Clinical Charting and Documentation, Nurses Notes, Direct Patient Care
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directpatientcare/clinical.documentation.nurses.notes.htm
Direct Patient Care
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/linksections/directpatientcarelinks.htm
Infertility, Contraception & Fertilization, Direct Patient Care Links
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directpatientcare/infertility.contraception.fertilization.htm
Informed Consent
http://www.legalnursingconsultant.org/legal.nurse.consultants.lnc/informed.consent.medical.legal.htm
Midwifery Links
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/midwife.htm
Neonatal Intensive Care (NICU) Nurses
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directory/spec/nicu.htm
Nurse Practice Acts, Legal and Medical Links
http://www.legalnursingconsultant.org/legal.nurse.consultants.lnc/nurse.practice.acts.htm
Nursing Professional Malpractice & Liability Insurance
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directory/business/insurance/nursing.professional.liability.insurance.htm
Obstetric Nurses
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directory/spec/obstetric.html
Torts Law & Personal Injury, Legal Resources
http://www.legalnursingconsultant.org/legal.nurse.consultants.lnc/law/torts.htm
Related Malpractice Cases:
August 29, 1999: Surgeon "Loses Clamp" Behind Patient's Heart During
Bypass.
Nurse's Responsibility To Pick Up?
Summary: During any surgical operation, there is an inherent "duty" owed
to the patient that the operation will be carried out competently. This
includes carrying out specified procedures and taking measures to prevent
"foreign" objects from being left in the body cavity. In this case, during
a coronary artery bypass grafting, a clamp slipped from the surgeon's
sight. It would be found on x-ray later sitting behind the patient's heart.
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/clinical.cases/082999.htm
August 8, 1999: Pregnant Prison Inmate Complains of Miscarriage,
Corrections Nurse On Duty Ignores Symptoms?
Ferris v. County of Kennebec, 44 5. Supp.2d 62 -ME (1999)
Summary: Nursing assessment skills are one of our most valuable assets.
They allow us to effectively evaluate our patients and communicate
significant findings to physicians and other members of the healthcare
team. In this case, a pregnant woman with a previous history of
miscarriage complained of vaginal bleeding and abdominal discomfort. The
assessment performed by the nurse fell negligently short of the required
standard of care.
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/clinical.cases/080899.htm
August 1, 1999: Nursing Duty To Patient, "Does Not Guarantee" Safety Or
Quality Of Care.
Summary: When a nurse accepts report and responsibility for the care of a
patient a duty to the patient is also accepted. This duty is to provide a
reasonable standard of care as defined by the Nurse Practice Act of the
individual state and the facility Policy & Procedures. In this case, a
post-op abdominal aneurysm repair patient was injured after falling from
his bed to the floor. When a lawsuit was filed the court initially mistook
expert testimony to imply the role of the nurse includes a guarantee of
safety.
Downey v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr. - 662 So. 2d 1152 (1995).
July 25, 1999: Premature Child of Cocaine Addicted Mother Survives
Abortion. Physician Order: Leave To Die?
The premature birth of a child under normal circumstances requires highly
skilled nursing and medical care if the child is to survive. The birth of
a premature child to a known Cocaine addicted mother greatly increased the
risks of mortality. In this case, a child intended to be aborted is born
alive. When the physician orders that the child be to left to die, it
miraculously survives on its own. Were the nurses liable for "following
orders?"
Hartsell v. Fort Sanders Reg. Med. Ctr. 905 S.W. 2d 944 - TN (1995).
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/clinical.cases/072599.htm
July 11, 1999: Nursing Home Rehabilitation Stay Proves Terminal. Was
Quality of Care Given An Issue?
Nursing homes are frequently a patient's destination for rehabilitation
following surgery. Common conditions fitting this bill include large bone
fractures, hip replacements and stroke. Following these acute episodes,
the patients are too unstable to go home and not "sick" enough to have
their hospital stays reimbursed by insurance companies. The purpose of
admission to a nursing home is to help the patient regain lost function,
strength and health. In this case, the patient would remain in the Nursing
Home till her death of complications.
Lloyd v. County of Du Page, 707 NE.2d 1252 - IL (1999)
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/clinical.cases/071199.htm
Sources:
1. Granju, Katie Allison. No Date Given. "CMV-The Most Dangerous
Pregnancy Complication You Never Heard Of." Bestfed.com.
http://www.bestfed.com/katie/cmv.htm
2. Kidshealth.org. No Date Given. Childhood Infections - Cytomegalovirus
(CMV). Nemours Center for Children's Health Media. Retrieved December 13,
1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/common/cytomegalovirus.html
3. 40 RRNL 6 (November 1999)
Send comments and mail to Andrew Lopez, RN
Created on January 30, 2000
Last updated by Andrew
Lopez, RN on Thursday, February 14, 2008 |