Tag Archives: lawsuit

5 Apps That May Transform Healthcare

Talk about being in a room with a lot of smart people! Wow!

HITLAB, a healthcare innovation technology and teaching lab based in New York, just sponsored its second annual World Cup event at Columbia University for aspiring healthcare technology entrepreneurs and start-ups. The HITLAB staff, who blew me away with their creative energy, brought together the best and the brightest in academia, the business world, the insurance industry and the healthcare technology sector for this two-day event.

Out of 192 applicants, five finalists were selected to present potentially revolutionary technology and ideas on a wide range of global public health problems that have been around since the time Moses wore short pants and that someday soon may have the kind of impact Louis Pasteur and Steve Jobs did.

The beauty of these five finalists is that their solutions are so simple that even someone from Jersey City like me can easily understand. The health insurance industry and the malpractice insurance industry should stand up and take notice.

Noninvasix — Keeping Babies Safe

For starters, what if we could reduce brain injuries in newborns by 90%? That is what the CEO of Noninvasix (www.noninvasix.com ), Graham Randall, PhD, MBA, based in Houston, is working on.  The technology is designed to monitor the levels of oxygen molecules in the brains of infants; lack of oxygen causes many permanent brain injuries. This technology was originally funded by the Department of Defense and the NIH, among others, to address traumatic brain injuries in wounded veterans and other adults. Randall’s colleagues discovered a way to use this technology, known as an optoacoustic oxygenation monitor, to detect brain oxygenation levels in babies during active labor.

Gary Hankins, MD, who is the vice chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy, said, “This technology has the potential to eliminate up to 90% of cases of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and subsequent permanent injuries such as cerebral palsy.” The problem with simply using current technology such as a fetal heart monitor-which dates back 40 years-is that it does not accurately measure the levels of oxygen in the brain. In fact, 80% of results are indeterminate or unknown. The new technology can help prevent brain hypoxia (or lack of sufficient oxygen) at birth, which is responsible for 23% of neonatal mortality in the world.

This technology may also help revolutionize obstetrics. OB-GYN physicians have the highest rate of malpractice insurance, with reported annual premiums as high as $200,000 in some states. More than 75% of OB/GYN physicians have been sued for malpractice, with an average of 2.7 lawsuits per physician. Most lawsuits relate to neurologically impaired infants, whose issues get blamed on the doctor during delivery. It has been reported that as many as 50% of OB-GYN physicians have cut back on their practice because of the fear of malpractice claims. Many have moved their practices to states that have less expensive premiums because of legislative caps on liability.

Hospitals, healthcare systems and health insurers should also take notice because the rate of unnecessary surgery has been widely believed to be too high since I walked the hallowed halls of Columbia University 34 years ago. C-section rates have, in fact, nearly doubled over the past 10 years from 17% to 34% of all births in the U.S. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends C-section rates in the range of 10-15%. The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals now requires hospitals to report C-section rates, and many health insurers now pay a bundled rate for deliveries and not a separate, higher rate for C-sections. Many health researchers believe the high rate of unnecessary C-sections is because of the fear of malpractice lawsuits, and Graham Randall believes that false positives from fetal heart monitors also play a huge role. C-sections are the most common surgery in the U.S., with 1.2 million performed each year, and they carry risks such as blood clots and surgical infections to both mother and baby.

Ceeable — Preventing Blindness

Chris Adams, the CEO of Ceeable, based in Somerville, Mass. (www.ceeable.com), won this year’s World Cup competition. “I am here to prevent blindness,” he said. Ceeable was formed in 2014 to commercialize a mobile digital eye exam platform that was co-invented with Dr. Wolfgang Fink at Caltech with assistance from scientists at NASA, the University of Arizona, the Doheny Eye Institute at UCLA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.

This mobile field test is a perfect example of the potential for telemedicine. Current technology, used by ophthalmologists, optometrists and eye care clinics in strip malls across America and around the world are expensive, and not very mobile. Today’s eye exams are tedious. (Bats have much better eyesight than I do, so I have experience with tests.) The equipment typically costs $35,000 and weighs roughly 100 pounds.  By contrast, Ceeable only needs a tablet with a touch screen and the Internet to perform a 3-D early detection for glaucoma, muscular degeneration disease, other causes of vision problems and the actual onset of blindness.

The test is user-friendly and can be performed anywhere in the world. The test can even be performed at home, which is brilliant. Although health insurers pay for eye exams at no cost under the ACA, patients are typically limited to two visits per year. With this inexpensive mobile device, people at risk can perform tests as often as they like.

More than 285 million people worldwide suffer from diseases that cause blindness, such as diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration. The Ceeable technology is now deployed in vision clinics in the U.S., Mexico and Russia and will soon be available in developing countries.

Rubitection — Managing Bedsores

Sanna Gaspard, the CEO and founder of Rubitection, based in Pittsburgh, received her PhD from Carnegie Mellon University, and her start-up has developed a handheld diagnostic device and software system to modernize the detection and management of bedsores. Rubitection has been part of Project Olympus at the Carnegie Mellon incubator program.

When I met her, I interrupted her within 60 seconds and said, “I get it.” My mother ended up in a nursing home when she was overcome with organic dementia. She became so fragile from old age that the nurses could hardly touch her skin without it turning black and blue. They also had to check her frequently for bedsores. 

Turns out I didn’t get it about bedsores at all. What I didn’t know, until Gaspard told me, is that bedsores can be life-threatening. Complications from bedsores, such as infections, kill 60,000 people every year in the U.S. The average cost to treat bedsores in acute cases is $43,000 each and may reach $70,000; there are more than 2.3 million bedsore cases a year in the U.S., costing $11 billion in total.

Medical expenses resulting from bedsores are not reimbursable under Medicare if they developed after someone was admitted to a facility. The facility has to eat the costs.

Current technology that monitors for bedsores is very expensive and difficult to use. The current standard of care is typically a manual skin palpitation and visual inspection. The Rubitech Assessment System (RAS) provides a reliable early detection handheld device for patients at risk with bedsores, helping to address a global public health problem that I didn’t even know existed beyond discomfort and pain for the patient. Rubitection www.rubitection.com came in a well-deserved second place.

Now I get it.

Homeward — Getting the Medication Right

Joe Gough, president and CEO of Homeward Healthcare in Toledo, Ohio www.homewardhc.com, told how his six-year-old son was misdiagnosed at a hospital emergency room and was sent home with the wrong medication. All his vital signs crashed. Luckily, his life was saved upon readmission, and today he is a healthy young man. Many others are not so fortunate.

Again, I immediately could relate to misdiagnosis and incorrect medications. My dad was diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and his cardiologist told me he had two months to two years to live. Several months later, I got a call: “You have to come home because your father is in the hospital, and we need to amputate both his legs because he is not getting enough blood circulation down there. We need you to tell him.”

I hopped on the next flight. When I told my dad the situation, he had the perfect answer: “Throw me out the window now.”

Turns out he was on all the wrong medications, and the poor circulation in his legs was actually more because of blockage in his carotid artery. The plan to amputate his legs would have done nothing to save his life. I got him admitted to a new hospital with a new cardiologist. My dad got to live a couple more years before he finally took his first day off from work, at his funeral. We buried him with both his legs.

So, I get misdiagnosis, wrong medications and poor discharge planning.

Gough and the researchers at Homeward Healthcare have created interactive software for hospitals, patients and payers that the patient can control on a touchscreen tablet from her bedside. Multimedia, real-time discharge planning that includes a patient dashboard will produce better outcomes, free staff time and resources and vastly improve communications.

Gough had begun his presentation by telling us that most people toss their discharge instructions as they walk out the hospital door — but no more. His technology has great potential to reduce hospital readmissions. A key component is a psychosocial assessment to determine who is at risk of not following the discharge plan.

There are also reminders about the correct use of proper medications, and I get the need for that, too. Patients must own their care plan. My oldest brother, upon release from a hospital a few years ago, was told he needed to lose weight and stop smoking. The first thing he did when he got home was have a large bowl of ice cream and a cigarette. I threw his discharge plan in the waste basket.

It is estimated that $26 billion is spent annually from readmissions. The reduction of readmission rates is now a major initiative under both Obamacare and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The Homeward Healthcare technology is now being used in 23 hospitals, and I am told nurses doing discharge planning just love it.

Ristcall — a Mobile, Smart Watch Nursing Station

Srinath Vaddepally, the CEO and founder of Ristcall, with offices in both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, has designed a wireless, wearable smart device for both hospital patients and nurses. I like to think of it as a mobile smart watch nursing station.

The idea for this technology, designed with researchers from Carnegie Mellon, came about when, as a hospital patient, Vaddepally fell in his hospital room and could not reach the call button on the bed. Turns out 70% of all patient falls in a hospital occur in the patient’s room, with 40% occurring while walking to the bathroom. The average cost to a hospital for a patient fall is $20,000 per case, and the annual reduction in Medicare reimbursements can reach $200,000.

Ristcall (www.ristcall.com) has a great point. How do you call a nursing station if you are lying on a floor and can’t reach the call button? In addition, how can you reach a nurse who is busy caring for multiple patients and is not at the nursing station?  Even when you ring the traditional call button, the nurse has no idea why you are calling; he has to walk to your room to find out.

As I told Dr. Michelle Odlum, a postdoctoral research scientist at the Columbia School of Nursing, nurses rock! They are the heart and soul of our healthcare system, but they are often overworked, and they don’t have eyes in the back of their heads.

Now, with the help of Project Olympus-which provided incubator space at Carnegie Mellon-nurses can soon have a real-time alert for all traditional patient requests. Nurses will be able to rock even more.

If you are a healthcare technology entrepreneur, I highly recommend applying for this award or sponsoring next year’s HITLAB World Cup Summit. It will be held once again at Lehner Hall at Columbia University in New York, from Nov. 28 to Dec. 2, 2016.

For more information, visit www.hitlab.org.

It was a real pleasure to meet these outstanding World Cup finalists and the HITLAB staff. I learned a great deal and made friends I feel I will now have for a lifetime.

5 Unique Risks for Radiologists

As part of our role as specialists, we wanted to learn more about the risks specific to radiologists, so we reached out to Karen Kruer, RN, CPHRM, and Michelle Foster Earle, ARM, president of OmniSure Consulting Group. Here’s what we learned.

Radiologists are second only to neurosurgeons in claims paid. Their average claim lands at $426,000. Radiology is a unique field of medicine, as it operates in an arena where other physicians cannot: seeing inside the body as a part of the diagnostic process. This specialty also brings a unique set of risks. These are the top five, together with suggestions for reducing risk.

# 1. Error in diagnosis – Of all the lawsuits filed against radiologists, error in the following five diagnoses most commonly leads to lawsuits:

– Breast cancer

– Nonvertebral fractures

– Spinal fractures

– Lung cancer

– Vascular disease

To decrease error in diagnosis, radiologists should have policies and procedures in place to ensure that with every procedure they obtain a complete patient history, know exactly what they are looking for, request further testing if there is any question and review the diagnosis with the ordering physician.

# 2. Procedural complication – There will always be an increased risk when an invasive procedure is performed, and radiology includes many, such as the injection of dye and the insertion of wire stents. However, noninvasive procedures may also increase the risk of complications. Consider an MRI on a patient with metal piercings or devices such as a pacemaker. The best tip for avoiding an adverse outcome is to ensure that a thorough screening is always done before any procedure. For example, the radiologist should know the reason an imaging procedure was ordered, as well as patients’ medical histories and what medications they are taking. Radiologists are trained to look inside a person’s body, but they can also benefit from looking at the outside by putting into place a thorough intake process. Ensuring that support staff is competent and well-trained also goes a long way toward reducing the risk of procedural complications.

# 3. Inadequate communication – Thorough communication with both the referring physician and the patient is essential. Radiologists are referred to for help in diagnosing the disease process, so adequate communication begins first with close contact with the physician who ordered the test. It is important to understand the context of the test-specifically, why it was ordered-and to have a clear picture of the patient’s health. When it comes to patients, the radiologist needs to make certain each patient is given the opportunity for informed consent. That means informing patients of the risks, benefits and any alternatives that can be chosen in lieu of the test.

Policies and procedures must be in place to handle critical test results. All staff must be informed as to which test results need to be called in to the referring physician immediately. One example would be that of a patient with headaches referred for a CT scan of the head, whose scan shows an aneurysm. Because this is obviously critical and time-sensitive, the results should be called in immediately.

# 4. Failure to recommend additional testing – Better safe than sorry-always err on the side of caution. For example, if a patient visits a radiologist for a mammogram because her physician felt a lump in the breast, and for some reason the radiologist cannot find the lump after a mammogram, should a more invasive test, such as a CT scan, be ordered? The answer is yes. Further testing should always be done. It can mean the difference between life and death (and a lawsuit or not). In the case of a dissecting aneurysm, for instance, if it is missed on the original X-ray and no further testing is performed, it is often too late to save the patient. This can be avoided by liberal recommendation of additional testing.

# 5. Failure to document – Documentation can make or break a case when attorneys become involved. Make certain everything is documented, including all test results, dates, times and subjects of all conversations with both the referring physician and patient. In the event of an adverse outcome where the court becomes involved, the ability to say and show all conversations is essential. Showing that the treating physician was spoken to, at this time and on this date and that the patient was given these recommendations is invaluable for risk reduction. For more information on the importance of documentation, visit this Ultra blog post.

How to Measure the Value of ERM

When the question of whether ERM is a success or failure comes up, it raises a further question: Why aren’t companies doing a better job of measuring the value it generates?

The reasons that the value of ERM is not quantified by companies include:

  • It is extremely hard to know when a loss did not happen because of ERM.
  • It is just as hard to quantify the cost of loss that did not happen.
  • It is difficult to quantify the “soft” benefits of enhanced reputation because ERM is practiced or because of improved strategic alignment in the organization; ERM requires an understanding of the company’s strategic goals and objectives to identify the risks that might derail their achievement.
  • It is often hard to justify the time and expense of measuring something that is not easy to measure.

Having acknowledged some of these obstacles, the only way that companies will know if their ERM efforts are successful is to create some measurement scheme that makes sense for their particular situation. Without measurement, how would a company know not only if it wants to continue an ERM implementation but also how much to invest in it.

Let us look at a few possible approaches to measuring the value of ERM:

Before-and-After Approach

Once an ERM process has gained some level of maturity in an organization, this approach would take the form of looking at fairly common and reliable metrics on a before-ERM and after-ERM basis. (There are ERM maturity models, developed by experts, that can be used to evaluate how far along the path to full or optimal implementation a company has progressed.) In fact, each of the approaches described would only be reasonable if the ERM process had been in place and well-executed for some period.

Naturally, there will multiple variables, not just the practice of ERM, that play into these metrics, but that is true for most metrics, and explanations can and should accompany the numbers to explain such variables.

Such metrics would include: 1) number of insurance claims, 2) number of worker injuries, 3) number of lawsuits related to a risk/loss events, 4) number of days or hours production is lost because of a risk/loss event, 5) cost of insurance and 6) total cost of risk (TCOR). Thus, when reviewed before and after ERM, the metrics can be charted to show absolute changes in value as well as trend lines. It might even be possible to notice on a relative basis that there are fewer risk-related surprises brought to management’s attention because ERM effectively identified risks while there was still time to deal with them.

Each company will be able to come up with its own unique metrics based on what it is currently capturing, what it could capture and what is important to its business operations.

The value of ERM would be evident or could be computed from the before-and-after metrics.

“What If” Approach

In the “what if” approach, one or more of the most significant risks in the risk register, which did not materialize when expected because of mitigation by the company, would be selected. Perhaps this was a regulatory change that would have harmed a product line, but the company took lobbying efforts or did product redesign because the risk was appropriately identified, prioritized and mitigated.

The amount of the loss that the risk would have likely have produced would be computed. Even if it were an insured loss, the estimate would take into account such things as the potential increase in insurance rates, management time and all other attendant expenses not covered.

Since the risk did not produce a loss, the amount of the “what if” loss is the value of ERM.

Alternatively, a significant loss event that affected key competitors but did not affect the company using ERM could be used to assess value. Perhaps it was a natural catastrophe that the company was better protected for or a demographic shift that the company anticipated and reacted to because of ERM.

To get at ERM’s value, the company would have to approximate what the risk, if ignored, would have cost.

Lacking Any Other Explanation Approach

In “The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity,” a wholly independent and peer-reviewed research project conducted by Mark Farrell of Queen’s University Management School and Dr. Ronan Gallagher of University of Edinburgh Business School, pub­lished in The Journal of Risk and Insurance, using data from the RIMS Risk Maturity Model, the case is made that, failing any other explanation, the companies with greater maturity have higher valuations because of it. Specifically, the study found that there was “clear and significant statistical correlation between mature enterprise risk management practices and a firm’s value.” Organizations exhibiting mature risk management practices-as assessed with the RIMS Risk Maturity Model-realize a valu­ation premium of 25%.

Discretionary Approach

Yet another approach that does not rely on metrics, per se, is a discretionary approach. In other words, the board, CEO or C-suite could attribute a value to ERM that is based on the recognition that the ERM process has, for example: 1) created a risk aware culture, 2) helped to identify and ameliorate risk, 3) made recovery from risks that have materialized much faster and more efficiently and 4) enhanced the brand among stakeholders.

The discretionary approach does require that management is involved in the ERM process, has an open mind about its contribution and will articulate its conclusions about ERM’s value so that the entire organization is aware of this assessment. Without management’s giving voice to its success, the question of whether it is a success or failure will haunt ERM.

Conclusion

There are undoubtedly other approaches that could be used. The key point is that companies that have invested in introducing ERM should do so in a vigorous way and should measure and communicate its value. This will ensure that the entire organization maintains a commitment to this important process.

A Victory for Exclusive Remedy on Asbestos

In a recent case, the 2nd Appellate District of California declined to open an new avenue to avoid the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation in Melendrez v Ameron International Corporation, not only upholding the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant/employer but also allowing the defendant to recover expert witness fees.

The employee, Lario Melendrez, was employed by Ameron for 24 years and was exposed to asbestos from insulation products. In 2011, he died from mesothelioma related to his asbestos exposure. His survivors/plaintiffs attempted to circumvent the exclusive remedy rule by alleging the employee had been allowed to take waste and scraps of insulated pipe home for personal use. Plaintiffs asserted the employee should not be shielded by workers’ compensation exclusivity for his non-work-related use of the employer’s asbestos products. Neither the trial court nor the appellate courts agreed with the effort to create a new exception to the exclusive remedy rule. The Appellate Court commented as follows:

“While we agree that a triable issue of fact exists whether Melendrez’s exposure to asbestos at home arose out of and in the course of his employment with Ameron, that issue is not material to the viability of Ameron’s defense of workers’ compensation exclusivity. It is undisputed that Melendrez’s exposure to asbestos in his employment with Ameron substantially contributed to his mesothelioma. Therefore, under the contributing cause standard applicable in workers’ compensation law, his mesothelioma is covered by workers’ compensation, and his separate exposure at home does not create a separate injury outside workers’ compensation coverage. Thus, plaintiffs’ lawsuit is barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.”

Citing the recent California Supreme Court holding in South Coast Framing, the 2nd district held:

“Given the purposes of workers’ compensation, courts have long applied a broad concept of contributing cause to bring injuries within workers’ compensation coverage. In short, if a substantial contributing cause of an injury arises out of and in the course of employment, the injury is covered by workers’ compensation, even if another, nonindustrial cause also substantially contributed to the injury. As recently explained in South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 (South Coast Framing): “[T]he workers’ compensation system is not based upon fault. ‘It seeks (1) to ensure that the cost of industrial injuries will be part of the cost of goods rather than a burden on society, (2) to guarantee prompt, limited compensation for an employee’s work injuries, regardless of fault, as an inevitable cost of production, (3) to spur increased industrial safety, and (4) in return, to insulate the employer from tort liability for his employees’ injuries.’…”

The court also cited case law that had established that the exclusivity provisions of workers’ compensation also apply to collateral or derivative injuries:

“[C]ourts have regularly barred claims where the alleged injury is collateral to or derivative of a compensable workplace injury.”… see also Vacanti, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 815 [“courts have barred employees from suing for psychic injuries caused by their termination, or their employer’s abusive conduct during the termination process]; LeFiell, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 284 [“‘[c]ourts have held that the exclusive jurisdiction provisions bar civil actions against employers by nondependent parents of an employee for the employee’s wrongful death, by an employee’s spouse for loss of the employee’s services or consortium, and for emotional distress suffered by a spouse in witnessing the employee’s injuries…'”

The court further distinguished authorities proposed by plaintiff to expand the ability to escape the exclusivity clause. In each of the cases cited by plaintiff, the court noted there were findings that the employee was not performing any service related to employment or even actions prohibited by his employer. In each of those cases, the injury was solely related to the non-work-related episode, and the plaintiff offered no authority to support severing a single injury into separate components as would be required in this case.

Comments and Conclusions:

This case represents an interesting effort to evade the exclusive remedy provisions in workers’ comp. A successful plaintiff’s result could potentially have expanded the ability to file civil actions whenever an employee took home something from work that eventually contributed to a work injury. Think a carpenter who receives permission to take home a tool and later files both a WC injury claim and a civil action against his employer for allowing him to use a work tool at home that resulted in injury. The potential combinations are endless for such scenarios.

Luckily, with this case the exceptions noted by plaintiffs in their brief will remain isolated and not expanded under this ruling.

5 Tips to Reduce Outpatient Lawsuits

If a patient or her attorney believes a physician is responsible for a bad outcome at an outpatient medical facility, the facility itself will be sued, not just the physician. Therefore, it is up to the facility to have established procedures and protocols in place to deter the risk of lawsuits. Here are five tips for outpatient medical facilities that may help reduce the risk of lawsuits.

#1. Good patient communication

Communication is the No. 1 issue in any medical setting – outpatient care is no exception. Within outpatient services, patients don’t typically have the same depth of relationship with the doctors as they do with their own primary physician. This often makes them more inclined to pursue legal action in the case of a bad outcome or adverse event. If facility physicians and staff take even a few minutes of extra time to answer all questions and address all concerns, patients and their families will walk away feeling as though they had all the information – even if a bad outcome occurred.

#2. Confirmation of informed consent

The patient is at the outpatient facility because of a medical problem – usually determined by his primary physician – who then referred him to the outpatient facility. It is the facility’s job to confirm that informed consent has occurred between the patient and physician, so policies must be in place to ensure this happens with each and every patient encounter. Patients must be informed of the details of the procedure, the risks and benefits and any alternative treatment options. A procedure should not be performed until informed consent has been confirmed. When patients or their families feel they were provided all available information, they are much less likely to pursue a lawsuit in the case of an adverse outcome.

#3. Proper documentation

Documentation can make or break a case when attorneys become involved. Be sure everything is documented, including all test results as well as the date, time and subject of all conversations with both the referring physician and patient. In the event of an adverse outcome where the court becomes involved, the ability to show all conversations is essential. For example, it can be invaluable to show that the referring physician was spoken to on a specific date and that the patient was given specific recommendations.

#4. Thorough and safe medical records

The outpatient setting leaves many opportunities for accidental breaches simply because so many patients are cycled through the facility on any given day. Printed medical records must be kept safe and strictly out of the public view – and that includes being locked away each night. It’s essential that facilities have protocols in place that diligently track the security of medical records at every step.

#5. Prompt diagnosis

Patients often don’t realize how long it may take for medical tests to return. Some lab tests can take days or weeks. Outpatient medical facilities must have an efficient procedure in place for obtaining results and delivering them to patients and the ordering physician in a timely manner. Let’s say a patient had an MRI because of an unidentified growth in breast tissue. If the MRI indicates suspicion for cancer, how does the facility ensure that test results aren’t getting lost in the shuffle? The cancer could spread and lead to a bad outcome. A system of checks and balances must be in place that helps the ordering physician see the results, and act quickly based on the findings. In an outpatient facility, all staff must be informed as to which test results need to be called in to the referring physician immediately.

Bottom Line – All of these reasons come back to the No. 1 issue: communication. For a busy outpatient facility, it can feel as though there simply isn’t enough time to talk to patients, but, from a risk management perspective, the importance cannot be stressed enough. It’s important to take the time to communicate every step of a patient’s care with her – to listen and answer her questions. Not only does this help to build trust, it can also minimize the risk of a lawsuit. Excellent communication between the provider and patient almost always creates a “win-win” situation.