Times executive editor Jill Abramson's article about the experiences of herself and three Times colleagues separately being hit as pedestrians by cars or trucks is fascinating and well-crafted, but I have a complaint about this one passage. She writes:
In the emergency department at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, where Ms. Fuhs was taken by ambulance, the doctors did a CT scan of her head: She had a concussion. When she told the doctors about pain in her neck, shoulder and hand, they told her to follow up with her primary physician as soon as possible. The next day she did, and when she complained about her shoulder, she was told it was severely bruised and swollen and would eventually heal; she should go home, ice it and take some naproxen, the active ingredient in Aleve. (It took three more visits and almost a month for doctors to figure out that her injuries included a fractured clavicle, a labrum tear and a rotator cuff tear, which required surgery.)
The Abramson article is about the human experience of these accidents — "How Being Hit by a Vehicle Changed Times Colleagues' Lives" — but it strikes me that there is a follow-up article to be written, or a sidebar, about the health care quality and policy aspect of the story. What is the name of the primary care physician who missed the fractured clavicle? Why did the St. Lukes-Roosevelt emergency room miss it? What do they have to say for themselves? Did they get paid in full by the insurance companies for the care they provided? What do other physicians say about the quality of that care? Did it fully meet quality standards or fail to meet standards? Does Ms. Fuhs still use that primary physician, or has she switched doctors out of dissatisfaction? If she has switched out of dissatisfaction, wouldn't it be useful for the Times to let readers know that, along with the doctor's name, so they can take it into account before going to see that doctor themselves? How often do these sorts of missed diagnoses happen, what can be done to prevent them, and what is the cost in health and dollars? Do the emergency room doctors or the primary care physician even know that they missed those other injuries in their initial examinations, and, if they do, have they changed their practices at all to make sure that they don't repeat the error?
It seems to me that the Times should go after these sorts of medical errors or missed diagnoses with at least the same investigative zeal that it has devoted to matters such as NSA surveillance or the GM ignition recall. No one expects doctors to be perfect, but there's a place for some accountability journalism to be done here along with the human interest journalism. It would be a good assignment for Elisabeth Rosenthal.