[ RadSafe ] Medical Incident
doctorbill34 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 9 13:53:34 CDT 2013
Although there's no quantitative definition for " egregious," delivering
the wrong treatment to the right patient or the right treatment to the
wrong patient qualifies in my book.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Brent Rogers <brent.s.rogers at gmail.com>wrote:
> 'Egregious' has a low threshold in some vocabularies. Too much cable-news
> viewing it seems.
> Brevity alert: Sent from my iPad
> On 05/09/2013, at 10:57, Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu> wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 2013, at 10:28 AM, William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
> >> This was an egregious error, regardless of the dose consequences,
> >> reportability, or semantics. Even the most rudimentary QA program would
> >> have prevented this.
> >> For power reactors, NRC violations are based on potential as well as
> >> consequences, i.e., "loss of control." I hope that you folks
> >> the leniency you receive from the regulators.
> >> Bill Lipton
> >> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> >> On Sep 4, 2013 10:26 AM, "Kent Lambert" <kent.lambert at drexel.edu>
> >>> Bill,
> >>> The wrong patient was not treated, a patient was given the wrong
> >>> radiopharmaceutical. Also, is the frequency of medical mistakes
> >>> the administration of radiopharmaceuticals more or less frequent than
> >>> frequency of mistakes involving non-radioactive drugs? Hypothetically
> >>> speaking, I would be much more worried about accidentally getting a
> >>> penicillin based antibiotic (to which I am allergic). The
> consequences in
> >>> this case could be fatal (as opposed to a theoretical slight increase
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe