Bouncebacks The Case of a 10-Year-Old Male with Eye Pain Bouncebacks appears semimonthly in JUCM. Case presentations on each patient, along with case-by-case risk management commentary by Gregory L. Henry, past president of The American College of Emergency Physicians, and discussions by other nationally recognized experts are detailed in the book Bouncebacks! Emergency Department Cases: ED returns (2006, Anadem Publishing, www.anadem.com).] Also avail- able at www.amazon.com and www.acep.org. Ryan Longstreth, MD, FACEP and Michael B. Weinstock, MD his article is the third in a series scheduled returns. Tin which we will sequentially Other than these medical errors, dysp- answer the following questions: nea and advanced age were the two most I. What is the incidence of common factors associated with an un- bouncebacks? scheduled return visit. II. What is the incidence Another study looking at this is- of bounceback ad- sue was published in 1990 in missions? the Annals of Emergency Medi- III. What is the inci- cine by Pierce et al. During the dence of death in three-month study period, patients recently there were 17,214 new visits to discharged from the their ED with 569 unscheduled ED? returns (defined as ED return IV. What percent of within 48 hours), equating bouncebacks occur to a bounceback rate of just because of medical over 3%. errors? The researchers con- V. How can we use this © Barton Stabler / Images.com cluded that over 18% were information to im- due to physician-related prove patient safety? factors (e.g., misdiagnosis, This month, we will discuss treatment error, inappropriate Question IV: What percent of discharge on initial visit, radiol- bouncebacks occur because of medical errors? ogy over-reads, or lack of outpa- A 2006 case control study performed by Nunez tient analgesics when indicated). et al compared 250 unscheduled ED returns over a four- Finally, we revisit a recent study by Sklar et al pub- month period with 250 similar visits in which patients lished in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in 2007. This did not return to the ED. The authors discovered a study analyzed unanticipated death in patients dis- prognostic error in 20% of the ED returns, a diagnostic charged home from the ED. Out of the 387,334 visits error in 20%, and a follow-up error in 26% in the un- considered from 1994-2004, 117 patients died within www.jucm.com JUCM The Journal of Urgent Care Medicine | March 2008 23 THE CASE OF A 10-YEAR-OLD MALE WITH EYE PAIN seven days of an ED discharge. The authors determined alize anything. No pupillary constriction on exam. that 35 of these 117 (30%) had a possible medical error. Visual acuity 20/20 OD, contrary to triages notes, vi- Common characteristics of Sklar’s possible medical er- sion was 20/30 after alcaine eye drops instilled to OS; Vi- ror cases included: sual fields are abnormal by confrontation. Extraocular Ⅲ atypical presentation of unusual problem muscles are intact. Pupils are unequal and OS is nonre- Ⅲ chronic disease with decompensation. (e.g., conges- active to light. The irises are abnormal. Unable to visu- tive heart failure) alize the Retina and disc margins due to injury. Lids, Ⅲ abnormal vital signs (note: tachycardia occurred in lashes and puncta are normal. Everted lids are normal. 25 out of 35 (71%) of “possible error” cases) Cornea is not clear with abrasion noted and no foreign Ⅲ mental disability, psychiatric problem, or substance bodies. The anterior chamber is not clear with abnormal abuse making it less likely the patient would return depth. Conjunctiva and sclera are abnormal with injec- for worsening problems tion. Slit lamp exam with Fluroscein stain reveals no for- eign body, increased dye uptake, abrasion w/o rust ring. A 10-Year-Old Male with Eye Pain ? sidels sign. Noted in ant chamber clear and bloody Initial Visit fluid intermixed. (Note: The following is the actual documentation of the providers, including punctuation and spelling errors.) RESULTS: CT OF THE BRAIN AND CT OF THE ORBITS, CHIEF COMPLAINT (at 20:19): Eye pain TWO PROJECTIONS (at 22:36): Dedicated thin sec- Time Temp Pulse Resp Syst Diast tions through the orbits obtained in the coronal and ax- 20:30 97.5 69 16 133 85 ial projection show no evidence of bone injury in the or- bits or sinuses. Several small bubbles are seen in the HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS (at 21:21): anterior space of the orbits, presumably due to eye ex- This pt is a 10 y/o male who presents with OS pain s/p amination. The globes themselves appear to be intact, direct, blunt trauma to eye approx 1pm this afternoon. at least as far as morphology and internal architecture. The pt reports playing “rubber” darts with friends at The extraocular muscles and lacrimal glands are normal home when one accidentally struck him in OS centrally in appearance. from direct throw. Now experiencing mod pain, photo- phobia, and tearing in OS. He does have redness and IMPRESSION: blurred vision. The pt reports no previous h/o eye injury Normal CT examination of the orbits. or trauma. Denies any other ROS PROGRESS NOTES (at 23:06): PAST MEDICAL HISTORY (PER TRIAGE RN): This patient presented after a rubber dart struck his left Medications: None eye—dart thrown by his sibling. His acuity is 20/30. His Allergies: No known allergies. eye does reveal a hyphema. EOMI. CT reveals no globe PMH: None rupture. I discussed this with the ophthalmologist on PSH: none call who recommends Homatropine, Ocuflox, Pred- SocHx: Tobacco use: (-), Alcohol use: (-) forte, analgesics, eye shield, head elevation, no antico- Visual acuity (at 20:38): Left eye: totally blind; agulants. I gave him the patient’s home phone num- Right eye: uncorrected 20/20. ber—he will call him tomorrow to be seen tomorrow in Immunizations: The infant/child’s immunizations his office. are current. DIAGNOSIS: EXAM (at 21:26) Eye injury, contusion General: Well-appearing; well nourished; A&O X 3, in Eye pain no apparent distress. Corneal abrasion Head: Normocephalic; atraumatic. Visual disturbance Skin: Normal for age and race; warm and dry; no ap- parent lesions DISPOSITION (at 00:04): Eyes: Fundoscopic exam attempted, unable to visu- Discharged to home ambulatory for ophthalmologist ex- 24 JUCM The Journal of Urgent Care Medicine | March 2008 www.jucm.com THE CASE OF A 10-YEAR-OLD MALE WITH EYE PAIN Urgent Care Medicine amination the next day. Sent home with homatropine drops. Prescrip- tions for predforte 1%, ocuflox drops, and Tylenol elixir with codeine. Aftercare instructions for hyphema. Eye patch applied to the left eye. Medical Follow-up with Ophthalmology the Next Day Professional PROGRESS NOTES (the next day): Patient was seen by the ophthalmologist the next day in his office and Liability was diagnosed with a complete globe rupture with partial retinal detach- ment. At that point, the visual acuity in the left eye was “light percep- Insurance tion” only, suggesting the nursing documentation of the visual acuity was more accurate than the physician’s—the documented OS 20/30 vi- The Wood Insurance Group, a lead- sual acuity was probably because he was “peeking” from his other eye. ing national insurance underwriter, He was taken to surgery that same day and the corneal laceration was offers significantly discounted, com- repaired and he underwent a partial lens resection. He was then sent to petitively priced Medical Profes- a retina specialist who performed a complete lens removal and vitrec- sional Liability Insurance for Urgent Care Medicine. We have been serv- tomy. ing the Urgent Care community for On the last office check, his visual acuity had improved to 20/100 in over 20 years, and our UCM prod- the left eye. ucts were designed specifically for Per the ophthalmologist; if he has no further improvement, then he Urgent Care Clinics. may be a candidate for a corneal transplant. Our Total Quality Approach Documentation and Risk Management Issues includes: at Initial Visit Ⅲ Preferred Coverage Features Error 1 Ⅲ Per visit rating (type & Error: Discrepancy in visual acuity. The visual acuity at triage noted number) the left eye was totally blind and the right eye was 20/20. However, ac- Ⅲ Prior Acts Coverage cording to the physician documentation, the acuity was 20/20 in both Ⅲ Defense outside the limit eyes and 20/30 in the affected eye after proparacaine eye drops, contrary Ⅲ Unlimited Tail available to the triage note. Ⅲ Exclusive “Best Practice” When the patient was evaluated the next morning by ophthalmology, Discounts it was noted that the patient had light perception only in the affected eye. Ⅲ Exceptional Service Standards Discussion: Although the medical record does state that the physi- Ⅲ Knowledgeable, friendly staff cian documentation was different than the triage note, the physician’s Ⅲ Easy application process assessment of the acuity was inaccurate. It appears that the physician Ⅲ Risk Mgmt/Educational did not correctly examine the eye to determine this acuity and that the support acuity reading of 20/30 was likely aided by “peeking” from his unaf- Ⅲ Fast turnaround on policy fected eye. changes One of the primary risk management issues is discrepancies in doc- Ⅲ Rapid response claim umentation and the ability of a plaintiff lawyer to pit different providers service against each other. In a legal setting, this discrepancy may make the rest of the physician documentation less believable to the jury. Teaching point: Visual acuity is the “vital sign” of the eye; hence, an accurate measurement of a patient’s acuity with any eye injury is essential in order to avoid medical error and minimize the physician’s medico legal exposure.