Comments on: Colombini Case – Lawsuit Machinations http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/ Info on ferromagnetic detection and MRI safety & screening Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:59:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Colombini Lawsuit For Most Infamous MRI Death - Settled « MRI Metal Detector Blog http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-2570 Colombini Lawsuit For Most Infamous MRI Death - Settled « MRI Metal Detector Blog Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:30:47 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-2570 [...] been named. This settlement may, ironically, have been both enabled and motivated by the fact that GE had been dismissed as a defendant to the suit in a pre-trial [...] [...] been named. This settlement may, ironically, have been both enabled and motivated by the fact that GE had been dismissed as a defendant to the suit in a pre-trial [...]

]]> By: The Boy Who Cried “Trial”! « MRI Metal Detector Blog http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-2240 The Boy Who Cried “Trial”! « MRI Metal Detector Blog Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:17:10 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-2240 [...] over a month ago, I wrote about the resolution of three of the pre-trial motions in this case. I was startled by what appears to me to be a disconnect between the judge’s [...] [...] over a month ago, I wrote about the resolution of three of the pre-trial motions in this case. I was startled by what appears to me to be a disconnect between the judge’s [...]

]]> By: The Most Infamous MRI Accident: Colombini At Westchester « MRI Metal Detector Blog http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-2025 The Most Infamous MRI Accident: Colombini At Westchester « MRI Metal Detector Blog Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:28:10 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-2025 [...] you may be interested in a more recent post on this blog on the Colombini accidents. Just click here to see the other [...] [...] you may be interested in a more recent post on this blog on the Colombini accidents. Just click here to see the other [...]

]]> By: Kim http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-1814 Kim Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:30:32 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-1814 I still cannot understand why imaging, all modalities, do not have a governing body which ensures that facilities across the country uphold an approved set of standards & mandates. These standards would include safety, QC & QA procedures & educationsal requirements to name a few. We have the ACR which "suggests" or "recommends" certain standards, but I think there needs to be mandates that are implemented as standard & not vary from state to state. There are a lot of facilities that now have MR "zones" for pt safety. This should be the standard across the board w/all facilities, wether it's a hospital or free standing out patient facility. I also believe that if we have universal standards in which facilities must be in compliance, ancillary & external healthcare providers would be more receptive & respectful of our profession. Most "outside" people, (pt's, doctors, nurses etc.) do no understand the magnitude of what goes on in imaging, especially when it comes to pt safety. I still cannot understand why imaging, all modalities, do not have a governing body which ensures that facilities across the country uphold an approved set of standards & mandates. These standards would include safety, QC & QA procedures & educationsal requirements to name a few. We have the ACR which “suggests” or “recommends” certain standards, but I think there needs to be mandates that are implemented as standard & not vary from state to state. There are a lot of facilities that now have MR “zones” for pt safety. This should be the standard across the board w/all facilities, wether it’s a hospital or free standing out patient facility. I also believe that if we have universal standards in which facilities must be in compliance, ancillary & external healthcare providers would be more receptive & respectful of our profession. Most “outside” people, (pt’s, doctors, nurses etc.) do no understand the magnitude of what goes on in imaging, especially when it comes to pt safety.

]]> By: Catherine http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-1751 Catherine Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:41:36 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-1751 Safety is everyone's duty. INCLUDING the MRI technolgist. Safety is everyone’s duty. INCLUDING the MRI technolgist.

]]> By: Sandra Chitwood http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-1735 Sandra Chitwood Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:47:49 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-1735 Sounds to me like this judge is very uneducated as to the workings of the MRI environment. Sounds to me like this judge is very uneducated as to the workings of the MRI environment.

]]> By: David Di Domenico http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-1733 David Di Domenico Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:45:01 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-1733 The individual DIRECTLY responsible for the safety of patients in the MRI environment is the MRI Technologist - PERIOD!!! No ifs, no buts, no semantics. If this decision is upheld does this mean that all MRI Technologists in the US are absolved of their responsibility to the safety of their patients? Dangerous precedent!!!.... (not to mention disturbingly disrespectful). The individual DIRECTLY responsible for the safety of patients in the MRI environment is the MRI Technologist – PERIOD!!! No ifs, no buts, no semantics.

If this decision is upheld does this mean that all MRI Technologists in the US are absolved of their responsibility to the safety of their patients? Dangerous precedent!!!…. (not to mention disturbingly disrespectful).

]]> By: Bart Pierce http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-1730 Bart Pierce Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:15:35 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-1730 Well I relieved that the MRI technologist will not be held liable but on the other hand shouldn't they be? We ARE the gate keepers regardless of what the judge says. This ruling will just serve to increase the incompetence and degrade the public's perception of our professional abilities. How can we expect to enforce proper safety parameters if in the end it is nobody's fault? Just my two cents Well I relieved that the MRI technologist will not be held liable but on the other hand shouldn’t they be? We ARE the gate keepers regardless of what the judge says. This ruling will just serve to increase the incompetence and degrade the public’s perception of our professional abilities. How can we expect to enforce proper safety parameters if in the end it is nobody’s fault?
Just my two cents

]]> By: Jonathan Mazal http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-1728 Jonathan Mazal Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:39:48 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-1728 Wow....I had no idea that the case was still even going on! Thanks for the update. I wonder how much impact the ruling will have on our scope of practice and level of responsibility?? On one hand if the tech involved is dismissed from liability, that is a good thing for the individual tech. On the other hand, doesn't such a ruling (diminishing our role in MR safety responsibility) hurt the profession by reinforcing the infamous "button pusher" label which we abhor? Wow….I had no idea that the case was still even going on! Thanks for the update. I wonder how much impact the ruling will have on our scope of practice and level of responsibility?? On one hand if the tech involved is dismissed from liability, that is a good thing for the individual tech. On the other hand, doesn’t such a ruling (diminishing our role in MR safety responsibility) hurt the profession by reinforcing the infamous “button pusher” label which we abhor?

]]> By: Wendy Stirnkorb http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/2009/08/colombini-case-lawsuit-machinations/comment-page-1/#comment-1720 Wendy Stirnkorb Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:34:14 +0000 http://mrimetaldetector.com/blog/?p=558#comment-1720 If the trained MRI professional holds no responsibility for the safety of the patient, then for God sake, who does? Part of this ruling is a result of the ignorance of the judge in what responsibilities a trained MRI technologist truly has and in what radiologists in both hospital and free standing outpatient facilities truly know about MRI safety. Radiologists are trained to interpret the images, but are minimally knowledgeable about magnetic safety, as a rule. Of course, there are notable exceptions to this, but in many facilities, the MRI team is the end all when it comes to magnetic safety. This ruling, if upheld, not only minimizes the skills of trained MRI professionals, it holds no technologist, those with direct patient care, responsible for their actions or inactions. If the trained MRI professional holds no responsibility for the safety of the patient, then for God sake, who does? Part of this ruling is a result of the ignorance of the judge in what responsibilities a trained MRI technologist truly has and in what radiologists in both hospital and free standing outpatient facilities truly know about MRI safety. Radiologists are trained to interpret the images, but are minimally knowledgeable about magnetic safety, as a rule. Of course, there are notable exceptions to this, but in many facilities, the MRI team is the end all when it comes to magnetic safety. This ruling, if upheld, not only minimizes the skills of trained MRI professionals, it holds no technologist, those with direct patient care, responsible for their actions or inactions.

]]>