Sice I thought this was drifting off the subject of the original discussion I though I'd move here.

I understand the thrust of the orginal thread and this away from the spirit of that thread, but I'd like to discuss this area.

Originally posted here by Negative
Doesn't the "Patient dies from allergic reaction to meds after Doctor can't access patient records" part of the question imply that there were allergy records (meaning that the patient provided allergies to the hospital)? How in the world are you going to hold the patient responsible?
I agree it does imply that records have been given to the hospital, but it does not imply that any allergy records were given, although the point is moot. I still hold the patient responsible because:



That sentence tells me that:
- the hospital had patient records, including patient allergies
- the hospital lost the records
- the doctor tried to check the records because that's what a doctor is supposed to do
- the doctor could not get access to the records
What is not mentioneded here is what would occur in reality. The doctor would explain to tthe patient (or relatives etc) that there were records and are now unavailable and would then do what all decent doctors do:

They would take a proper hsitory! Including asking the patient about allergies and/or checking to other sources of information.

As a doctor you should always take a full history from the patient rather that relying on the patients notes or records for one very important reason:

It is the doctor who is making his decision on the course of treatment for the patient, no one else. Records and notes should be viewed as support materiels for that decesion, but not the soul source of information. You should never make any assumptions about the quality of the information in patient records, unless you wrote them, and remeber clearly why they were written.

So to a doctor, no records may make things harder, but they should not prevent a proper history being taken and relevant questions being asked and answered regarding allergies.

If the patient doesn't know about any allergies, it is unreasonable to expect the doctor to be able to divine this.

If they do know they have life threatening allergies the patient holds responsinbility for informing people about them.

For goodness sake, if you knew that if you got a shot of tetracycline it would kill you, you'd make damn sure anyone could get that information regardless of computers/records or your own state of consiousness.

I know I would. It's no good blaming other people after you're dead.

You can't!


- the doctor went ahead and administered drugs
- those drugs happen to kill the patient because (s)he was allergic to them
So the patient dies through their own contributory negligence?

Steve