<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Simple surgery made complicated by MRSA
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->WE APPLAUD the reports on MRSA infection last week, bringing to focus a problem that had long been plaguing hospitals and patients alike. We wish to present our recent harrowing experience as victims of this infection.
Our father, previously a healthy and active 89-year-old, was admitted to Singapore General Hospital for an elective straightforward prostate surgery recently. The operation went well, but soon after discharge, he became gravely ill and was readmitted.
It was "discovered" then that a nasal swab done on him before the operation was positive for MRSA. The swab report was unfortunately filed away without notice.
Subsequently, he required three months of very potent and costly antibiotic treatment for the MRSA infection. Our family was devastated as we had not expected our father to suffer so much after a simple surgery, to end up wheelchair-bound, incontinent and totally dependent on others with no quality of life.
The lapses were a failure to track the nasal swab result and to clear our father of the nasal MRSA before the operation. As an MRSA carrier, he was a hazard not only to himself, but also to other patients in the operating theatre and in the ward.
The hospital authority, however, denied any wrongdoing and felt that nasal MRSA was not an issue. So sadly, the hospital focused on treatment and not its prevention, and ironically, we were expected to pay heavily for the treatment when the hospital failed to prevent it.
Continuity of care was lacking with different teams of attending doctors and nurses not knowing what each had done.
We would like to make the following suggestions:
1. Set up a ground troop or "patient safety unit" dedicated to monitoring, tracking and resolving swiftly safety issues on the ground. This will provide more targeted care as the weakest link in the effective control of MRSA appears to be on the ground.
2. Hospitals should be held more accountable for lapses that contribute to the spread of MRSA. And nothing works better than monetary punishment and compensation to victims for avoidable lapses.
3. Hospitals should be upfront and transparent. So long as the hospital remains defensive and in denial, it will not make any headway in stamping out MRSA infections.
Unnecessary suffering should never have to occur.
We hope that our experience provides useful learning points and serves as timely feedback from the ground.
Chao Swee Nam ( Madam) Dr Steve Chao
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->WE APPLAUD the reports on MRSA infection last week, bringing to focus a problem that had long been plaguing hospitals and patients alike. We wish to present our recent harrowing experience as victims of this infection.
Our father, previously a healthy and active 89-year-old, was admitted to Singapore General Hospital for an elective straightforward prostate surgery recently. The operation went well, but soon after discharge, he became gravely ill and was readmitted.
It was "discovered" then that a nasal swab done on him before the operation was positive for MRSA. The swab report was unfortunately filed away without notice.
Subsequently, he required three months of very potent and costly antibiotic treatment for the MRSA infection. Our family was devastated as we had not expected our father to suffer so much after a simple surgery, to end up wheelchair-bound, incontinent and totally dependent on others with no quality of life.
The lapses were a failure to track the nasal swab result and to clear our father of the nasal MRSA before the operation. As an MRSA carrier, he was a hazard not only to himself, but also to other patients in the operating theatre and in the ward.
The hospital authority, however, denied any wrongdoing and felt that nasal MRSA was not an issue. So sadly, the hospital focused on treatment and not its prevention, and ironically, we were expected to pay heavily for the treatment when the hospital failed to prevent it.
Continuity of care was lacking with different teams of attending doctors and nurses not knowing what each had done.
We would like to make the following suggestions:
1. Set up a ground troop or "patient safety unit" dedicated to monitoring, tracking and resolving swiftly safety issues on the ground. This will provide more targeted care as the weakest link in the effective control of MRSA appears to be on the ground.
2. Hospitals should be held more accountable for lapses that contribute to the spread of MRSA. And nothing works better than monetary punishment and compensation to victims for avoidable lapses.
3. Hospitals should be upfront and transparent. So long as the hospital remains defensive and in denial, it will not make any headway in stamping out MRSA infections.
Unnecessary suffering should never have to occur.
We hope that our experience provides useful learning points and serves as timely feedback from the ground.
Chao Swee Nam ( Madam) Dr Steve Chao
