ABC: Woman Dies After Receiving Smoker's Lungs in Transplant

[China]

Woman Dies After Receiving Smoker's Lungs in Transplant

Jennifer Wederell, a 27-year-old British woman with cystic fibrosis, died of lung cancer after she received the lungs of a heavy smoker in an organ transplant.

According to BBC News, Wederell had been on the waiting list for a lung transplant for 18 months when in April 2011, she was told there was finally a match. She received the transplant, apparently not knowing the donor had been a smoker. In February 2012 a malignant mass was found in her lungs. She died less than 16 months after the transplant.

Her father, Colin Grannell, said he believed his daughter had died a death meant for someone else. "The shock immediately turned to anger insofar as all the risks were explained in the hour before her transplant," he told the BBC, "and not once was the fact smoker's lungs would be used mentioned."

Click on the link for the full article

[autoidiodyssey]

Woman Dies After Receiving Smoker's Lungs in Transplant

Jennifer Wederell, a 27-year-old British woman with cystic fibrosis, died of lung cancer after she received the lungs of a heavy smoker in an organ transplant.

According to BBC News, Wederell had been on the waiting list for a lung transplant for 18 months when in April 2011, she was told there was finally a match. She received the transplant, apparently not knowing the donor had been a smoker. In February 2012 a malignant mass was found in her lungs. She died less than 16 months after the transplant.

Her father, Colin Grannell, said he believed his daughter had died a death meant for someone else. "The shock immediately turned to anger insofar as all the risks were explained in the hour before her transplant," he told the BBC, "and not once was the fact smoker's lungs would be used mentioned."

Click on the link for the full article

That is awful, don't they screen organ donors for that sort of thing? That is like something out of a Twilight Zone episode.

[KingGibbs]

That is horrible. How does that even happen? Smoking claims another life in what seems the most surreal way possible.

[Forehead]

According to the article, using lungs from smokers isn't an uncommon practice, though generally this is supposed to be disclosed to the recipient beforehand.

[twa]

If her need was not critical she would not have had a transplant in the first place.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

100,000 deaths each year caused by preventable medical error in the U.S alone. Mistakes happen.

[China]

100,000 deaths each year caused by preventable medical error in the U.S alone. Mistakes happen.

That number strikes me as a bit high. In looking it up I see there was a report that estimated these deaths as between 44,000 and 98,000. A review of that report found those estimates to be suspect.

The methods used to estimate the upper bound of the estimate (98,000 preventable deaths) were highly subjective, and their reliability and reproducibility are unknown, as are the methods used to estimate the lower bound (44,000 deaths).

Conclusion. Using the published literature, we could not confirm the Institute of Medicine's reported number of deaths due to medical errors. Due to the potential impact of this number on policy, it is unfortunate that the IOM's estimate is not well substantiated.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That number strikes me as a bit high. In looking it up I see there was a report that estimated these deaths as between 44,000 and 98,000. A review of that report found those estimates to be suspect.

Actually, the 98000 number comes from the Institutes of Medicine, which is very reputable. The review you cited is what is biased, as its conducted by the American College of Physicians. But, more importantly the review you cited is not nearly as thorough as the IOM report.

Since the 98,000 number by the Institutes of Medicine, most analyses have found that the number is probably on the LOW side now.

Edit:

On the bias note, the IOM report was not done with any intent to have political influence. Since that time, numerous groups have attacked it with suspect "reviews" for political gain because they wish to push medical malpractice reform.

Medical malpractice is a very real, and too common thing.

[China]

Actually, the 98000 number comes from the Institutes of Medicine, which is very reputable. The review you cited is what is biased, as its conducted by the American College of Physicians. But, more importantly the review you cited is not nearly as thorough as the IOM report.

Since the 98,000 number by the Institutes of Medicine, most analyses have found that the number is probably on the LOW side now.

Edit:

On the bias note, the IOM report was not done with any intent to have political influence. Since that time, numerous groups have attacked it with suspect "reviews" for political gain because they wish to push medical malpractice reform.

Medical malpractice is a very real, and too common thing.

The 98,000 number doesn't come from the IOM. They report two numbers 44,000 and 98,000 each based on a different study that was conducted, but not by the IOM. Nevertheless, you make a good point about the bias. BTW, both of those studies used in the IOM report were conducted in the early '90s which means these numbers are almost 20 years old (and the IOM report was issued in 1999). It is fair to assume that they are no longer accurate. I would even be willing to go so far as to say that the number of medical errors has likely increased in the last 20 years.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The 98,000 number doesn't come from the IOM. They report two numbers 44,000 and 98,000 each based on a different study that was conducted, but not by the IOM. Nevertheless, you make a good point about the bias. BTW, both of those studies used in the IOM report were conducted in the early '90s which means these numbers are almost 20 years old (and the IOM report was issued in 1999). It is fair to assume that they are no longer accurate. I would even be willing to go so far as to say that the number of medical errors has likely increased in the last 20 years.

The IOM did come up with the 98,000 number.

Like I said, the report is pretty old now. Most non-partisan numbers think it has grown and the numbers are on the low side. Which, means I agree.

Also, this is just deaths from medical error.

[Bang]

This is why I practice Home Transplanting.

~Bang

[China]

The IOM did come up with the 98,000 number.

The IOM didn't conduct the study, it was a Harvard study reported in the NEJM in 1991. Here is the original study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1987460

And looking at that study, it was based on data from 1984, so really we're talking about 30 year old data now.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The IOM didn't conduct the study, it was a Harvard study reported in the NEJM in 1991. Here is the original study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1987460

And looking at that study, it was based on data from 1984, so really we're talking about 30 year old data now.

The IOM relies upon all types of previous studies and research and then discusses those studies and research with panels through the field of medicine. But, in 1999, they came up with their study in which they estimated that up to 98,000 died each year from preventable medical error. http://www.iom.edu/Reports/1999/To-E...th-System.aspx

It sounds like you're discounting their study because they did research based on previous studies and then incorporated that into other research and compiled their numbers.

Here's the link to the short form of the study on that site: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Rep...rt%20brief.pdf

---------- Post added December-20th-2012 at 02:40 PM ----------

Speak of the devil, here's an article that just came across my twitter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...washingtonpost

Not death events, just so called "Never events."

[China]

It sounds like you're discounting their study because they did research based on previous studies and then incorporated that into other research and compiled their numbers.

You misunderstand. I'm not discounting their work, merely pointing out that their numbers are based on reviews of other studies that they did not conduct. Their numbers are therefore limited by and only as accurate as the original studies. I don't know what flaws there may be in the original studies, although if they were being reported in the NEJM I would assume they were done well. In actuality, as you say, the real numbers may be higher (and likely are), but due to limitations in the available data the IOM calculated what they did (again it is difficult to know how accurate it is without knowing the accuracy of the original data). I think we both agree that seeing as the numbers reported 13 years ago are based on data from 1984 that that the current numbers are probably much higher (as I would guess, based only on my own personal conjecture, that the incidence of medical errors has increased during the last 30 years).

Oh, and BTW I have the full long form report from IOM.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You misunderstand. I'm not discounting their work, merely pointing out that their numbers are based on reviews of other studies that they did not conduct. Their numbers are therefore limited by and only as accurate as the original studies. I don't know what flaws there may be in the original studies, although if they were being reported in the NEJM I would assume they were done well. In actuality, as you say, the real numbers may be higher (and likely are), but due to limitations in the available data the IOM calculated what they did (again it is difficult to know how accurate it is without knowing the accuracy of the original data). I think we both agree that seeing as the numbers reported 13 years ago are based on data from 1984 that that the current numbers are probably much higher (as I would guess, based only on my own personal conjecture, that the incidence of medical errors has increased during the last 30 years).

Oh, and BTW I have the full long form report from IOM.

Ok. They do not go in the field and gather data. They gather data by doing research and conducting interviews, roundtables, etc. That's all true.