Blast victims treated according to international standards: HMC

March 05, 2014 - 4:45:59 am

DOHA: Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) yesterday denied a report carried by The Peninsula on Monday, March 3, 2014 (Blast victims hit by HMC exit order).

In response to The Peninsula report, Ali Al Khater, Executive Director, HMC claimed that two blast victims mentioned in the report were treated according to international best practice and they received clinically appropriate, high-quality care.

The four-page clarification note said: “Yesterday, The Peninsula reported a factually inaccurate story about two of the victims treated by our hospital on Thursday. After a review of our medical records and interviews with clinicians, we have concluded that both patients were treated according to international best practice and received clinically appropriate, high-quality care”.

 

Both patients received high quality medical care: HMC official

Doha: Following are excerpts from a letter addressed to The Peninsula by Ali Al Khater, Executive Director, Corporate Communications at Hamad Medical Corporation

Emergency care is provided free of charge to all those who need it, with or without identification. It is categorically not true that any patients who arrive at our facility are denied treatment due to the absence of identification. We seek confirmation of identity prior to discharge, not prior to treatment. Such confirmation is mandated, particularly in incidents such as these, when proper identification of all casualties is so important. 

On Monday, The Peninsula reported a factually inaccurate story about two of the victims treated by our hospital on Thursday. After a review of our medical records and interviews with clinicians, we have concluded that both patients were treated according to international best practice and received clinically appropriate, high quality care. 

The story reports that Mohamad Iqbal Ismail waited five hours, until he produced identification, before he was treated. This is clearly inaccurate. Mr Ismail was seen and treated by a highly trained trauma specialist within minutes of arriving by HMC ambulance to our emergency department. He was then followed up continuously by two more doctors before he provided identification. This is clear evidence that he was given full access to emergency care without hesitation. At all times while in our care his condition was stable, as assessed and reassessed by a total of seven doctors who agreed he did not require inpatient care. Mr Ismail was released with medications to prevent infection and pain along with follow up instructions for his care. 

The following took place in relation to Mr Ismail’s treatment while under our specialist care: 

Action taken by HMC to treat Mr Mohamad Iqbal Ismail:

11:00: Patient arrived by HMC ambulance at HGH Emergency Department and was immediately triaged by a trauma surgeon who determined he was stable and his injuries were not life threatening 

11:02:Patient was registered and moved to the male urgent area 

11 :50:Patient was seen by another specialist who ordered investigative  procedures and pain relief 

12:00: Pain relief was administered to the patient 

12:33: Patient was taken for a CT scan 

13:05:CT scan report showed normal results however it indicated there were foreign bodies present in soft tissues 

16:00: Patient reported he was not in pain. He was seen by a surgeon in the See and Treat area who noted multiple cuts to his face, neck and  forearm. Wounds were cleaned and sutured under local anesthetic. 

17:00: Patient was returned to male urgent area for re-evaluation 

17:40: Patient was re-evaluated by two more doctors who checked his pain status after medication and concluded he was ready for discharge 

18:30: Patient was discharged with prescription and advice for follow up treatment

18:48:Patient acquired his medication at the pharmacy and left the hospital 

23:30:Patient returned to the emergency department complaining of swelling and pain. He was triaged and vital signs were noted to be stable. No  fever was present.

 1 :00 (28 Feb): Patient was seen by two doctors who assessed him 

1:10: Patient was given pain relief 

2:00: Patient was discharged with medicine and instructions for follow up care 

The same story reported that another patient was rushed to discharge without proper treatment. This is also an inaccurate statement. The evidence shows that Mr Sarafudheen was thoroughly examined and treated by five doctors who agreed he did not need inpatient care on the day of the incident. They gave him proper follow up advice to be checked daily through primary care to monitor his progress. This advice proved to be sound. As is common in blunt force injuries, swelling during recovery can sometimes result in subsequent difficulties. In Mr Sarafudheen’s case his diligence in following our doctor’s instructions led to his eye injury being assessed and treated quickly and comprehensively in our specialist ophthalmology inpatient care at Rumailah Hospital. 

The following took place in relation to Mr Sarafudheen’s treatment while under our specialist care: 

Action taken by HMC to treat Mr Sarafudheen:

11 :00: Patient arrived by HMC ambulance at HGH Emergency Department and was immediately triaged by a trauma surgeon in the trauma room. He concluded the injuries were not life threatening and the patient was stable. 

11:10: Patient was registered and transferred to the male urgent area 

11 :30: Patient was administered pain relief 

12:25: Patient seen by another doctor who determined his breathing and circulation were normal and noted he had a wound on his face near the  eye and scalp. He noted the patient had a minor head injury and was complaining of pain in the arms. 

13:30: Patient was given xrays on the left and right wrists and forearms. Report showed normal results. 

14:20: CT scan was ordered 

20:34: CT scan report showed normal results with a small bruise on the  head. No eye injury, fractures or contusions were present. 

22:30: Patient was reassessed by a doctor and complained of back pain. XRAYS to chest, complete spine were ordered and conducted. All results were normal. 

1 :15 (28 Feb): Patient was reassessed by another two doctors who noted the patient was feeling better with analgesia and that there was no neurological deficit. Patient was discharged with instructions for bed     rest, pain relief and advice to be followed up daily to check wounds and     dressing on a daily basis. 

13:53 (1 Mar) :Arrived in HGH emergency department with concern about his eye 

14:10     Patient was assessed by doctor and referred to ophthalmologist. He was thoroughly examined by an ophthalmologist who determined he  should stay in emergency for a comprehensive examination. After a series of tests the ophthalmologist concluded the patient required inpatient care due to pressure that had built up in the eye subsequent to the original injury. Patient was referred to Rumailah Hospital for inpatient treatment. 

19:30: Patient was transferred to RH via HMC patient transfer unit where he was admitted and is currently being treated by our highly trained specialists. 

HMC can assure your readers that our emergency system has provided optimal and appropriate emergency response to all patients involved in the three major incidents on 27 February. HMC also wishes to assure the public of its continuous commitment to bringing world-class care to each and every one of its patients in all emergency situations. Our emergency health professionals across the HMC system are committed to always bringing the best care in all situations.

The Peninsula

comments powered by Disqus