A New Jersey case decided in August 2018 had been brought by a plaintiff patient who had gone to the emergency room complaining of severe pain. The gynecologist performed a laparotomy to remove an ovarian cyst. Five years after the surgery, the plaintiff injured her back. A CAT scan showed a mass in her abdomen and exploratory surgery showed that the mass was a lap sponge from the laparotomy. She had to have her right ovary and fallopian tube removed. The patient sued the hospital, the surgeon who performed the laparotomy, the circulating nurse, and the scrub nurse. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon only.
Per hospital policy, a laparotomy involved three distinct “counts” of instruments and lap pad sponges performed by the circulating and scrub nurses. An initial count was conducted to determine the number of instruments and sponges circulating in the operating room. The second count occurred upon the initial closure of the peritoneal lining, wherein the nurses would count aloud for everyone in the operating room to hear. The third and final count occurred when the surgeon was ready to close the skin.
In this case, although a total of thirteen lap sponges were used during plaintiff’s surgery, the hash marks denoting the tally revealed a count of only twelve sponges retrieved, thus one was missing. However, the circulating nurse mistakenly wrote the number “13” next to the hash marks after adding them incorrectly. Neither nurse noticed the counting error and after verbally being advised that the count was correct, the gynecologist acknowledged the count by signing the count sheet. After surgery, the plaintiff developed a fever but a repeat CAT scan did not reveal the forgotten sponge. She was then discharged after her symptoms resolved.
At trial, the circulating nurse admitted that she miscalculated the number of sponges on the count form but told the doctor that all sponges were accounted for. The gynecologist testified that he relied on the nurses’ counts and did not add up the tally on the count form before signing it. Plaintiff’s expert witness admitted that at the two hospitals where he worked, the nurses, not the surgeons, were responsible for the sponge count, but argued that the doctor’s mistake was in not reading the form in detail before he signed it. The doctor’s experts testified that his signature on the form simply acknowledged that the nurse told him the count was correct. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice and the gynecologist’s experts established the applicable standard of care, and that the doctor is not required to confirm the nurses’ count. The doctor’s signature only meant that the doctor had received an oral confirmation from the nursing staff that the count was complete was correct.
While this legal case revolves around individual responsibility, one approach to preventing similar surgical complications remains the use of a team approach. A surgical team must prepare and plan for the surgery, document problems (patient, procedure and equipment-related) in order to optimize the outcomes. The WHO has developed a Safe Surgery Checklist and manual (see ‘Learn More – Primary Sources below) to address these challenges and encourage the development of high-functioning teams. It is understood that each center will have its own particular approach and, therefore, the manual serves to provide ‘suggestions’ to promote safety and teamwork rather than rigid guidelines.
The Hidden Costs of Reconciling Surgical Sponge Counts
Retained surgical sponge: Medicolegal aspects
WHO surgical safety checklist and implementation manual
Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas
OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.
This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.
The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.
Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.
Jointly provided by
