Hospitals oppose telling more about blunders

Hartford - Advocates of giving the public more specific information about surgical errors, patient falls and other medical care breakdowns encountered widespread opposition from Connecticut's hospitals at a legislative public hearing Monday on increasing reporting and disclosure requirements for these so-called "adverse events."

The two sides squared off Monday at a Public Health Committee hearing on a bill supported by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the Connecticut Center for Patient Safety, but opposed in its current form by the Connecticut Hospital Association, which represents the state's three dozen hospitals.

The bill would require that the state Department of Public Health produce annual reports on adverse events at hospitals and outpatient surgical centers naming where the errors took place and summarizing the corrective actions taken. It would also require the department to conduct random audits of hospitals to ensure they are reporting adverse events, and would protect hospital staff who report such incidents from retaliation.

In a news conference and testimony to the committee, Blumenthal, the Democratic candidate for the Senate seat now held by Christopher Dodd, criticized the fact that the public now gets only general information on numbers and types of adverse events, but not specific information identifying where errors occurred or what happened as a result.

"The current law is a deadly and disgraceful failure, shielding hospitals and surgical centers from scrutiny and leaving patients in the dark," he said, adding that since 2004, 116 state residents have died as a results of adverse events.

Also testifying in support was Charles Bell of Consumers Union, the nonprofit group that publishes Consumer Reports; William Smith of New Hartford, who told how his wife died in 2005 after surgery at Hartford Hospital to repair a broken collarbone went horribly wrong; Angel Morales of Hartford, who said he has been unable to get sufficient information from the state public health department or the hospital about a bad fall his father suffered there; and Felecia Gerardi of Ellington. She told how what was supposed to be one-day hysterectomy surgery at Manchester Hospital in 2006 turned into a month in the hospital, the removal of part of her intestines and permanent scarring on her abdominal organs.

"The very visibility of the reporting will create urgency in hospitals (to take corrective action) and hold them accountable," she said.

The hospital association and representatives of hospitals around the state, however, said that the bill would be counterproductive. Among them was Dr. Dan Rissi, chief medical officer of Lawrence & Memorial Hospital in New London, who said confidential reporting of adverse events to the state best serves patients and the fosters the kinds of discussions that lead to improvements.

He and other hospital officials said quality initiatives in recent years are showing good results in reducing errors and hospital-acquired infections, without the kind of public shaming and fines contemplated in the bill. And when an error does occur, they said, patients, families and the state get the specific information about what went wrong and why.

The public health department opposes the bill as currently written, said Wendy Furniss of the department's Bureau of Healthcare Systems, because the information would be presented without the context of hospital size, patient characteristics and other factors. In addition, the department could not carry out the additional audit and reporting requirements without more staff, she said.

j.benson@theday.com