subject: Doctors Knew Man's Symptoms And Abnormal Test Results But Failed To Detect His Prostate Cancer Until It Has Spread [print this page] Doctors Knew Man's Symptoms And Abnormal Test Results But Failed To Detect His Prostate Cancer Until It Has Spread
Coordinating the care of a patient may actually make the difference between life and death. The inovolvement of several doctors in the treatment of the patient raises the risk that some doctors may have crucial information that has to be relayed to the patient and the other doctors for necessary follow up. Without it the patient might go on lacking suitable and critical treatment. When the patient is made aware of each doctor's conclusions and the reason behind those conclusions the at least the patient can make an informed decision based on his or her level of risk tolerance. So if a physician has information or reaches a conclusion that the patient needs immediate follow up or treatment it is crucial for that doctor to inform the patient and possibly also at least the patient's primary care physician.
Consider the following reported lawsuit. A number of doctors had an opportunity to diagnose the male patient's prostate cancer The individual first saw his primary care physician, a general practitioner, with complaints of urinary problems when he was fifty-six years old. The PCP decided that the issues were not due to cancer although no testing was done to rule out cancer.
The man, on his own, went to a urologist 10 months later. The urologist carried out a physical examination of the prostate and ordered a PSA blood test. The man then found out that this urologist did not practice in the patient's insurance network and so the patient consulted with a second urologist.
Even though the blood test results came in neither the results of the test nor the first urologist's suspicion of cancer and recommendation that a biopsy be done were passed on to the patient's primary care physician or to his second urologist. The second urologist decided that there were no abnormalities present with the prostate and that there was no indication of cancer.
It took an additional two years when the patient's prostate cancer was ultimately detected. The physicians treating the patient's cancer concluded that he probably had only one to five years to live due to the cancer's spread. The law firm that handled this case reported that they were able to achieve a settlement during jury selection at trial in the amount of $2,500,000 on behalf of the patient.
This lawsuit thus demonstrates 2 main types of failures. There was the failure on the part of the PCP and the second urologist to not follow the proper screening guidelines. Additionally there was the failure of communication among the different physicians. While there is no way to know whether the family doctor or the second urologist would have followed up on results of the PSA test from the first urologist or on that urologist's suspicion and recommendation they at a minimum would have had information and perspective they were missing.
