Ailan

Are surgical or exam gloves lined with talcum powder? I'm asking because I read that if talc gets into the abdominal cavity, it can cause ovarian tumors. Something about talc containing asbestos.

Just curious, when a resident or other medical person in training perform all or part of the operation, is that information entered into the patient's chart? Perhaps in code? I would think information like that would have to be documented for legal reasons.

I've learned so much from this thread. I think you're all great. Your patients are very lucky indeed:cheers: Critterlover, I'm printing out your suggested questions for the surgeon before surgery. It's going in my hospital file. Thanks for that!:paw:

I'm looking at the "Conditions of Admissions" form that I had to sign before my surgery at a teaching hospital in Los Angeles (oh, what the heck, it's no secret - Cedars Sinai) Of the many conditions, the one that fits this discussion is No. 5 - Teaching Hospital. "Patient acknowledges that the hospital is a teaching hospital and as such the training of physicians and surgeons, nurses and other health care personnel takes place at the hospital. Patient understands that nurses, physicians and other health care personnel in training may participate in the operation or special diagnostic or therapeutic procedures specified above under a supervising physician or surgeon, and Patient hereby consents thereto." It seems too me that the part that says "the training of.........and other healthcare personnel" gives permission for the practice pelvic exams on anesthesized patients that I've read about that takes place in the OR. (I've accessed a lot of articles about the subject. Not that I understand fully, but it seems that with all the uproar a few years ago about the practice, the most that came from it was a "recommendation" that hospitals get "explicit" permission from the patient. It doesn't say "required", so maybe the hospitals still do it secretly unless a patient objects.) the part that says...."other health care personnel in training may participate in the operation" seems to give permission to anybody in training to perform surgical procedures on the patient." the part that says......"procedures specified above under a supervising physician or surgeon..." ( Isn't the Chief Resident the supervising physician if the surgeon isn't in the room? ) If so, then it gives him the right to set the protocol. There is no place on this form to fill in names or other types of people who might be in the OR. There is no place to opt out. I read one article where a surgeon justified having his high school son and 2 of his friends observe an operation because he was trying to get them interested in medicine. I'm just curious, what part would you cross out if you didn't want those practice pelvic exams to take place.

Just curious for all you nurses in the know: If you had an operation at a teaching hospital, what questions would you ask of the doctor, and would you be allowed to request changes in OR protocol?

thanks for the interesting "insider" comments. I'm absolutly convinced that if patients were informed ahead of time that student doctors would have hands-on participation in the operation, there would be a lot of upset patients or cancellations. I had one operation so far. The consent paragraph that said that "other" medical or hospital personnel might be involved in the operation was pretty vague. And, what patient, just before an operation, reads or even understands the whole stack of paperwork that they have to sign. You just sign where you're instructed because we're so nervous and want to just trust everything and everybody. I have run by my friends who have had operations and asked them if they were aware that the operations they had might have been done by student doctors, and not one of them believed me. They thought at most they just observed, or practiced on cadavers or indigent patients. I insisted that it's true for even private patients at teaching hospitals. I could see that I was upsetting them, so stopped talking about it. Really, we civilians have no idea how new doctors are taught. The doctors and hospitals have kept their methods so under wraps for a very good reason - because they know if everything that actually happens in the OR were an open book, there would be an uproar by the public.

found this interesting thread in a surgeon's blog discussing this subject. If anyone's interested, here it is https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30499448&postID=3416202238189729765

I was wondering if any of the O.R. nurses have heard of the term "ghost surgery". (full article can be found here) http://upalumni.org/medschool/appendices/appendix-37.html#fnB407 _____________________ (synopsis of article) .......patients are routinely lied to implicitly or explicitly as to who's actually going to perform the surgery. 1) 50-85% of surgery in teaching hospitals is performed by residents 2) some residents performed surgery without direct supervision 3) most patients were unaware of the degree of resident's participation, and 4) consent forms did not give patients sufficient notice of the degree of residents' involvement.[408] A surgeon defends this practice in an editorial in JAMA: "As long as the attending surgeon is in the operating room and assures himself [sic] that each task is carried out expertly, he is 'doing' the operation.... It is neither possible or necessary to explain this in detail to every patient.... American surgeons need be neither apologetic nor defensive about our training methods."[411] _____________________ Just wondering if you have witnessed this being practiced in the O.R. where you work, and if you think that keeping it secret from the patient is ethical.