[90202]
After multiple contacts, the co finally talked to the physician who told co the following: this patient was on her 7th pregnancy, gestational diabetic, started cervical dilation 7-3 cm, who she wanted to give pitocin. She placed koala away from placenta and did not notice fluid or blood in amnio-lumen. After a couple of hours, she noted 5-6 cm dilation and some blood from vagina. She removed koala, not noting blood on it and did a crash c-section due to fhr of 60 and bleeding. At c-section the cavity was full of blood and noted a major abruption. The doctor's first impression was that the problem of timultuous contractions were due to an anterior fibroid and nothing to do with the koala which was placed posterior. When the nurses mentioned an earlier abruption the same day and that maybe the koala was involved. She considered it possible. But her impression of koala was that the tip was bigger than intran (which it isn't) and that could have caused the problem. She could not really say that the abruption had anything to do with koala. The co contacted the nurse director as well as other nurses on 10/1/97. She told me she did not contact the co directly, but spoke to a kol-bio medical rep. Who sells koala. She said that he came in the next day, 9/17/97, and she could see that the problems with both incidences were probably not caused by koala. She said that none of the midwives or physicians have been trained and she wants further training. The co has talked to the nurse manager on 9/16/97 and was told the same thing that time that the report was premature. As noted, the doctor told me that these only thought the koala might have been invovled after the nurses told her that they thought that they had a problem earlier that day with koals causing abruption (which it didn't). She still isn't sure koala had anything to do with the abruption. The co's conclusion is that the koala did not contribute to nor cause the adverse event.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: D, B5