1,600 Patients Treated At Free Clinic (Cleveland)

[OhioChick]

7:01 pm EDT July 26, 2009

CLEVELAND -- Nurses, doctors and health care professionals volunteered their time Saturday to take care of the uninsured.

MedWorks is a new nonprofit organization offering free health care.

More than 1,600 people took advantage of the free clinic at the Walker Center. They had their blood pressure taken and their eyes checked.

Valerie Neal said she came to the MedWorks clinic because she didn't have another option.

Zac Pensky created MedWorks. He said even he was surprised by the turnout, not only of patients, but doctors like Karen Cooper.

"I couldn't not come today. There's so many people who need to be seen, so many people without insurance," said Cooper.

Patients were triaged and categorized by their problem and then treated by some of the best doctors in the area -- everything from general care to cardiology.

Neal had lab work done while she waited.

"They told me I'm getting some complications that I'm going to have to check into," she said.

Neal left with drug samples and prescriptions. She said she hopes this free clinic returns, because if it doesn't, "I don't know where I'm going to go to get it taken care of."

On Monday, MedWorks officials plan to discuss the weekend's event and review what worked and what didn't, and possibly start planning another clinic soon.

http://www.newsnet5.com/health/20181735/detail.html

[MercutioATC]

1. Not to take away from the obvious good this event did...

...but I wonder how they worked out malpractice issues.

[geckosfeet]

3. Probably have people sign waivers.

[MercutioATC]

4. If that's sufficient to actually keep malpractice suits at bay, that's great.

Until we get real access to health care for everybody, this is a great grassroots stopgap measure.

[elleng]

5. Reminds me of a lawyer friend of mine who refused to serve pro bono

because he lacks insurance. Me, I volunteered and served.

Just Do It.

[MercutioATC]

13. If this comparison seems valid to you...

...you probably shouldn't be acting in a capacity that could be civilly actionable.

[elleng]

14. Thanks so much

for your confidence in professionals and in people in need of cost-free professional advice.

[MercutioATC]

15. You're making unfounded assumptions.

I didn't question either the need of pro-bono service or the professionals who provide it.

I asked how they dealt with a legal issue.

[OhioChick]

16. Look it up.

:)

[elleng]

18. and you're assuming WHAT about my assumptions?

[babylonsister]

6. Leave it to you. nt

[MercutioATC]

9. To consider the real-life workings of a program? Absolutely.

I think it's a great program. I also see an exposure to malpractice claims, so I asked if the OP knew how the issue had been dealt with.

[babylonsister]

10. "Not to take away but". Who are you kidding? Why so negative,

all the time?

Start a positive thread and PM me so I can appreciate it. That'd be great!

[MercutioATC]

11. Why is is "so negative" to ask about the real-life implementation of things?

Give me a great story and I'll be the one to ask the mundane, technical questions...I give you that.


I said that I think it's a great program. I also think that giving access to health care in this manner could provide a liability concern.

I asked how this liability had been addressed.

[Mojorabbit]

12. First thing I thought of too

Once you start a chart on someone you cannot ethically "abandon" them as a patient without sending letters of notification. So if you see someone with a problem that requires followup, you need to make arrangements for that followup or you would be liable. I'd love to know how they dealt with the liability problem. You can't just see someone and tell them they need a heart cath and then say seeya till the next clinic which may or may not happen. You can't put someone on meds that require monitoring blood levels at intervals and just say seeya.

[Ms. Toad]

19. They triaged into three groups.

First - nothing serious wrong. No need for follow-up.

Second - needs care long term, but not immediately (like high blood pressure). That group will be the subject of meetings and further follow-up down in weeks/months. The intent is to find doctors or existing community health providers who will take them on on an ongoing basis at low/no cost.

Third - needs immediate care(like a heart cath, or cancer treatment). That group will be further triaged (by charts) within the next week and "asks" will be sent to providers shortly thereafter to find providers to address the immediate health care needs.

[Mojorabbit]

20. So the physicians that saw the patients

are responsible for finding them followup care? That might address liability and would make sense.

[Ms. Toad]

21. The group that put the event on, which includes physicians.

Individual physicians are not responsible for finding follow-up care.

I was very glad to hear they had planned for follow-up care because providing one time care does little more than put a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound.

I ignored the linking of ethical responsibility with legal liability in the original post, since the more important issue to me seemed to be moral obligation to do more than just hand out bandaids. Since the assertion that providing a one time clinic inherently creates legal liablity was repeated I feel the need to comment on it.

Leaving moral and ethical considerations aside, legally, unless the physician does something to make the person's situation worse, it is extremely unlikely that a physician would be found liable for whatever happens to a patient as a result of the physician identifying whatever medical problem they have. Essentially, this clinic is like being seen in the ER - typically that is a one time visit. Follow-up care is recommended, but is ultimately up to the patient to arrange.

There might be occasional situations that could create legal liability - for example starting someone on coumadin. Coumadin is dangerous if not regularly monitored. Starting someone on coumadin without ensuring that person has the ability to be regularly monitored would be not only morally irresponsible, but likely legally irresponsible as well since physician's actions put the person more at risk since taking coumadin without monitoring it can be life threatening without regard to the underlying condition. But normally a physician would not be legally liable for the natural progress of the disease merely because the physician identified its existence or provided initial treatment.

[Crunchy Frog]

2. Well at least they didn't have any gub'mint bureaucrats standing between them and their doctors.

[babylonsister]

7. Oh my goodness ,

that pic! :rofl:

[Quantess]

8. Similar event in the Appalachia region:

With photos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6152185

[BlooInBloo]

17. Nice.