Like the other posters here, I have to wonder about the gloves and the fact this happened five times . . not one, but FIVE times. . . . . . . I smell CHEESE !

He wore gloves, but they developed microscopic tears, the hospital said.

OK, 5 operations means 5 pairs of gloves, and they are saying all 5 pairs developed "microscopic tears"? Who the hell do they get their gloves from?

Alternative theory, Dr wore 1 pair of gloves 5 times, which means the patients are lucky if they only got Staph infections, and not worse blood-borne diseases like Hepatitis or HIV.

So either the hospital was cutting corners by buying inferior gloves (in which case they and the glove manufacturer will have hefty lawsuits, or the Dr was cutting corners/just plain lazy, in which case he and the hospital are facing heavy lawsuits, not only from patients, but also the glove manufacturer for libel/slander. In any event, the hospital will be paying a lot.

I can't be certain what actually happened, but it seems odd that the Dr would have this bacteria on his hands at all, as surgeons are supposed to wash a lot as part of the prep fro surgery, and soap + hot water will remove Staph 99.9% of the time. So if he washed 5 times, used 5 different pairs of gloves and still passed on these infections, this changes everything medicine knows about Staph. I really find this hard to believe, as with 5 different pairs of gloves all failing in exactly the same manner 5 times. Lets hope the CDC gets to the bottom of this, and ASAP. I'm just glad I won't ever have need of using this hospital as I live on the other side of the country from this place!

First of all, he should have known better. Secondly, even if double gloved, the gloves tear. They tear, at times, when tying the suture knots involved in the procedure, especially if using solid-core suture, which is used in arthroscopic shoulder surgeries.

Risk can potentially be minimized by frequent glove changes or use of more durable, less penetrable gloves.

The scrub process they go through prior to entering the OR may not have been enough with the infection on his hand. The infection on his hand may have been resistant to the scrub? /shrugs

Why this surgeon chose to operate with infected hands is beyond me.

"...but they developed microscopic tears...causing the infection to pass..." What about condoms?

Condoms, extra small, could only be used on the fingers. No way to cover the rest of the hand. So that's not practical.

If the gloves were bad, then other surg patients in this hospital would be infected, not just this doctor's patients.

Unless the "inflammation" covered his hand(s), the doctor could/should have applied antibiotic ointment and bandages before the gloves.

I believe Common Sense means if the gloves could tear, wouldn't the same happen to condoms?

Has it not occurred to anyone else that the hospital reps are lying? 'Microscopic tears in gloves' sounds very much like an easy, if lame, excuse. They are scrambling to cover their a$$e$ knowing they will be drowning in lawsuits.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Only on Newsvine can a discussion devolve from a Staph infection during heart valve surgery to the durability of condoms.

ROFL!! I'm with you JimSpence

Yes pagan...The Dr. kept the gloves after using them just to use them on another patient days later....and then another...and another.....

hs321,

I hope you're being sarcastic there. If not, you must be so short that even the top of a table goes over your head. LMAO...

On another note, 5 out of 5 patience. That's batting 1,000 man. Wow.

I always believed that these so called surgical gloves were impervious to most anything but sharp objects. Especially when someone is reaching within body parts of living beings. Hmmm. WTF man...

CelticPagan,

Seriously? Don't quit your day job... Don't think you'd make it on CSI

What? You're sick? Don't give me excuses, get your b!tch @ss to work and make my corporation money! I'm sure that sounds familiar to most of America, thanks Corporations for piss poor service and not following procedures to make people ill who are near deaths door. I hope they survive long enough to file the lawsuits against you.

Guys, obviously tears are common in gloves, otherwise doctors wouldn't need to scrub-in, which involves 3 minutes scrubbing on each arm (elbow to finger nails), using special soap and a sterile scrubber. These are tears that can't be seen by the naked eye and the virus is smaller than the tears. The doctor may not have known he had a staph infection...though, any sore on his hands should have prevented him from performing surgery.

On a side note, the hospital wanted everyone to know that they still charged the patients for the surgery plus the follow up care they received for the staph infection. Plus, the patients signed a contract beforehand that they wouldnt hold the hospital or surgeon accountable for anything they might do/have done to screw something up/kill them or to cause them more pain. They want to thank everyone involved for being gullible.

Yeah the doctor didn't know he had a staph infection, uh huh, and we don't know who the doctor is because infecting multiple people with deadly bacteria doesn't merit that kind of scrutiny, infamy or loss of license....

Yep, got it.

Anything else I don't need to know?

Sad that all they offered was an apology. I've heard horrible stories from friends and family about what goes on in hospitals, and the gross oversight by doctors. And no one can sue them, because of course they have all the money, and no lawyer wants to go against them.

Jodeman. If it weren't serious, it'd be funny. They have made people pay to fix their problems forever. There is no warranty in medicine. So if they give you the infection, they charge you to fix it - if you don't die first. And they have procedures they can charge for that too. As for the gloves, I would like to say there is no way they have that many glove failures and do nothing about it. But we still have docs not washing their hands. Look at the famous case of Walter Reed hospital where they put wounded soldiers in rooms with mold on the walls and vermin crawling around. Hospital in Florida had Docs taking used stents (intended for one use only) and reuse them in new patients. So I can believe that they buy gloves that are not quality for the job, knowing they have failures. Infecting people and do nothing about it. Some times Doctors are the highest trained dummies in the world.

I briefly worked at a Physical Therapy Clinic, and without fail, the nasty, awful post surgical infections came from the same one or two surgeons...carriers? poor practice? Who knows.

I want to know how the hospital knows that there were microscopic holes in the gloves - you can't see microscopic holes except under a microscope and those glove should have been disposed of after each surgery.

I am glad that this doctor can no longer preform surgery. My take is that they pulled his surgeon credentials, but he can still practice general medicine since he still has hospital privileges.

This story sound like B.S.

I think it is more likely that several instruments were not properly sterilized and it was a coincidence that the surgeon had a staph infection on his hands. There are lots of staph bacteria floating around many surfaces in the hospital and many doctors pick up staph infections. If this surgeon happened to have a staph infection and cleaned it properly and then wore appropriate gloves there shouldn't have been a problem.

IF "microscopic tears" were prevalent, surgeons and surgical nurses( especially union nurses) would be screaming about transmission of HIV, Hep C (along with many others) because viruses are much smaller than the staph bacteria we're talking about here.

This Typhoid Mary doctor has many lawyers not sleeping at night waiting on a phone call.

Here's another possibility: this guy went from one surgery to another, without changing gloves. In today's time-is-money scheduling for medical personnel (where an ofc. visit is 15 min. with your doc, no more), I wouldn't be surprised if he was slated for multiple surgeries on the same day and failed to re-scrub and re-glove.

This story sound like B.S.

I am inclined to stand with you. There has to be more to this story than what is published. Staph infections are common in hospitals. Maybe it was the instruments that passed on the infections. We do not know. The hospital is supposed to be one of the best. We will have to wait and see.

This is very, very common. Gloves are not 100% barriers, hence the point mentioned above about scrubbing in. Typically, gloves are meant to protect the surgeons against possible infections from the patients- the skin is actually the major barrier to infection, with the gloves protecting against most pathogens and the hand washing afterwards removing remaining diseases.

It is VERY easy to get minor tears in gloves, from suturing, holding instruments, even touching any surface. An open sore on the doctor's hand with bacteria near the surface could easily transmit through gloves, though his situation would have had to be pretty bad.

I cannot lay the blame on the gloves for this, they are what they are, thin pieces of nitrile, latex, or vinyl that are subject to tear easily. I do fault the doctor for not using plain, old common sense. C'mon for goodness sakes, the SURGEON has a staph infection on his HANDS and IGNORED that fact and went ahead with HEART VALVE surgery. He could have killed any one or all of those patients! He opened himself up to a lawsuit as well as the hospital. If this is an indication of the physician's decision making skill set, the hospital should 86 this doctor ASAP.

Agreed! Bad gloves or not I can't help wonder if the doctor scrubbed for the amount of time or with enough disinfectant soap. Having gotten an infection on my hand years ago I can verify that just washing and cleaning that area was painful. Here he was supposed to scrub vigoriously for several minutes with special soaps before putting on gloves...maybe he cheated. Either way, he knew he had an infection and never should have operated on anyone. Using gloves that tear is just another aspect of the problem.

It does not seem like with all the surgeries that happen each year in the USA that this would be the first time something like this would happen. I agree that something must be up with these gloves this hospital is using, either that or other hospitals do not allow surgeons to operate when they have infections on their hands - that would make sense too. Well, in the end, it gives the hospital a reason to charge these patients a hundred thousand or so more dollars.

Since none of us were there when this doctor scrubbed in for surgery, we don't know how good of a job he did. However, during both of my late parents' numerous hospitalizations, I noticed that the staff did not wash their hands when they entered the room, went from my parent to the other patient in the romm (although they changed gloves), nor did they wash when leaving. When questioned, they would reply that the gloves and the antibacterial lotion would cover anything.

As a side note, I've noticed that many Hollywood stars go to that hospital when they have heart problems and very few of them leave alive. It doesn't matter how old they were. It makes me question the cleanliness of the whole cardiac unit there.

Something sounds really wrong here. My bet is that it the OR suite or their autoclave (sterilizes instruments) is contaminated. The hospital found a scapegoat and for some reason the doctor is going with the story.

There is no way you can have an staph infection and not know it. And if gloves have microscopic tears, why not use something else, or just not wear gloves in the first place?

yet another reason medicine does not work in an large infested city.

stop going to the dr and you wont get sick.

stop going for surgery and you wont die

stop using medication and your inside will stop rotting away

people who use modern medicine need to figure out if its better or worse....

I'm just going to live my life this way (no treatment for anything ever) up to the moment i die, but at least i didn't waste my life being sick and paying for it with every dime i ever made...im rather healthy to the naked eye and really that's all that matters. and i don't have to sit on a bed that someone who had herpes did 5 minutes before me.

I have a living will, its dont treat me for anything. Period.

Ahhh, the wonders and benefits of capitalism.

The corporate doctor makes you sick, but the corporation isn't required to reveal to the public the name of the doctor. Freedom and fairness seems to be a one way (capitalist) street.

Is it any wonder why capitalism fights the "un-capitalistic" notion of regulation?

Yeah the doctor didn't know he had a staph infection, uh huh,

Staph epi (the type this man had on his hands) is on EVERYONE'S hands. It's called Staphylococcus epidermidis because it lives on skin. Not everyone gets sick from it -- usually when it ends up in wounds or in places it's not suppose to be (live on a heart valve).

That said, sounds like there was a failure somewhere. Also, the article did say he had inflammation on his hands. Basically, there could be failure anywhere along the line -- from the surgeon to the gloves to other equipment, etc., etc.

Most importantly, I hope that these people recover fully without extra complication.

It would just seem to be common sense for a surgeon not to operate when s/he has an infected hand!

Wants to know: Agreed. That said, the surgeon had inflammation on his hands -- it doesn't say that he had a known infection prior to the surgeries. Inflammation can come from many sources -- including non-infectious sources. Furthermore, Staph epi is a normal flora of the vast majority of individuals' hands - in fact, you (and I) probably have it on our hands right this very minute.

I'm not saying this is excusable - it's not. Just saying that it's not a clear case of a surgeon operating with a known infection.

However the bacteria was transmitted, it was transmitted and the surgeon was the one who transmitted it, should have known better and taken better precautions preparing for the surgery...with or without an infection.

However the bacteria was transmitted, it was transmitted and the surgeon was the one who transmitted it,

This is an example of circular logic. You are using your conclusion (the surgeon transmitted the infection through inflammation) as proof of the same

Gloves from the low bidder, which is likely in China. Now that would be a shocker.

You are using your conclusion (the surgeon transmitted the infection through inflammation) as proof of the same

I believe Cedars-Sinai was the first to make that conclusion.

Five heart patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center contracted staph infections after a doctor operated on them with bacteria on his hands, the hospital said this week

The doctor, whom the hospital declined to name, had an inflammation on his hand...

I believe Cedars-Sinai was the first to make that conclusion.

Maybe, but not by using the conclusion as a supporting fact. Its clear that this article is incomplete. There is no way inflammation alone could spread an infection. Furthermore, as summer correctly states, staph epi is an ubiquitous organism. Its routinely disregarded when found on blood culture

Microscopic tears in the gloves sounds plausible. My guess is that there have to be multiple layers (literally) of sterilization and protection--gloves and scrubbing are two of those but can be undone by an active infection (scrubbing an active infection is NOT going to eliminate bacteria from an active infection, duh). NOTHING eliminates 100% of pathogens! And there are many strains of staph, some worse than others, and susceptibility to infection varies--but open heart surgery sounds like a good way to increase susceptibility. (eric, if staph is everywhere, why bother scrubbing at all when doing open heart surgery?)

Probably how he got the infection in the first place.

Who here wants to operate on an HIV+ patient with hepatitis C knowing that there may be holes in your gloves big enough for Staph epi to pass through? Surgeons take this risk everyday.

If you don't have a sore on your hand, you don't need to worry about blood-borne illnesses. They scrub in to avoid things like this happening but it sounds like this doc had a sore.

who cares, patient infections are a big problem in hospitals, a subject routinely seen in the news. can you name a case of a doctor being infected in the same manner as these patients were supposedly infected? I doubt it.

RDH thanks for the idea. So we are to believe that the Docs know these gloves are full of holes and desease passes through like going through a pipe. IF it were true I don't believe the Docs would be so willingly doing thousands of procedures with such horrible odds of staying safe. Secondly, where are the news reports of Docs falling out like crazy with deseases they are catching from patients will protected ? The abscence of such reports makes me want more investigation in the case in the article. Something fishy about this. Gloves consistently not working for one guy only. Indeed!

Educated physicians would/should know the risks of surgical gloves, and knowing those risks, this surgeon chose to perform surgeries anyway, with a sore on his hand.

Um, just a note - the article says the surgeon had inflammation on his hands not sores. Inflammation does not automatically mean that there were open sores on his hands -- depends on how significant the inflammation is.

Inflammation does not automatically mean that there were open sores on his hands -- depends on how significant the inflammation is.

It was significant enough to cause five people to become infected.

It was significant enough to cause five people to become infected.

Don't believe everything you read

Debi - The point I'm making is this: inflammation does NOT automatically mean there is an infection. Furthermore, Staph epi (the bacteria implicated in this particular incidence) is on EVERYONE's skin -- that's where it got it's name from (staphylococcus epidermidis). Everyone carries it on them. Also, staph epi does not require open sores to be transmitted, since it lives on skin. It causes problems when there is an open wound (like a surgical wound, scratch, etc., etc.).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that patients getting infected in acceptable - it's NOT acceptable in any way. Clearly, there was a breakdown somewhere along the way -- whether it be with defective gloves, the surgeon (or others) not scrubbing properly, or other breakdowns in protocol, or even a combination of problems.

Clearly, the hospital needs to investigate if their gloves are substandard (prone to microtears), if the surgeon and/or others aren't following proper scrub protocol this needs fixed, etc., etc.

In the end, I truly hope that all these people recover fully and do well despite this infection.

There's a medical supply company that produces other medical devices that is back producing in the U.S. after having been stationed in Mexico for a few years. That company learned that the risk for compromising sterile medical equipment is so much less of a risk in the U.S. Medical devices are the type of products you can't afford to risk anything less than near-perfect quality and always maintain universal precautions. If one slips up once, your whole company could be destroyed in a day.

Some do, some don't.

This begs the question, though: why wasn't this surgeon wearing a Band-Aid?

It also begs the question, if this surgeon knew he had an infection on his hands, why didn't he double his gloves (even if he usually did not do that)?

I realize that some doctors may be of the opinion that they can't feel as much with doubled gloves, but patient safety should be the first priority, especially if a surgeon is going to operate while fighting an infection of any kind.

No it begs the question if he knew he had an infection on his hands why was he operating in the first place? Isn't part of the Hipocratic oath 'first do no harm'

I could do it if I knew how many patients this doctor touched, and the time frame the five cases occurred.

I think it's more than surgeons' gloves...I agree with Kallie above about the surgical instruments. There is more to this story than we know. Also, what about those people who handled the valves? Perhaps the valves became contaminated. I find it hard to believe that 5 patients were all infected due to glove issues.

Actually wouldn't it be a Probability Geek we need?

Doctors vs Gunowners
Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
Gun Owners
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

The next time you have a heart attack go to a gun owner.

Unless all 80,000,000 gun owners carry and fire their guns everyday, your point is just plan ludicrous.

wow, you really are an idiot monkey

"Death panels?" Geez, how long are you going to continue to believe in that wingnut fairy tale?

Reminds me of that episode of "Bones," where she takes her UV lamp (or whatever it is) to a hospital and flashes it on the wall to reveal spotches of old blood on the walls, floors, and ceiling. Oh, ick!

Death panels under Obamacare? They existed long before that under the old insurance programs. My mother suffered a heart attack 5 years ago (before Obama even won his first election). Her medical insurance (a Medicare PPO) had a nurse deny physical and occupational therapy to her, even though she never examined my mother. She based it on an erroneous diagnosis several months earlier that my mother had dementia (she didn't - it was a reaction to her medications). Even with my mother's doctors and hospital caseworker showing evidence that was erroneous, she kept denying pt and ot based on that. So, don't start in about Obamacare; it was there a long time before.

Cedars is a wealthy hospital...lots of donors and it's in beverly hills. The error was on the part of the doc, operating with a sore on his hand. Doctors scrub-in because microscopic tears are common.

Whoa..."microscopic tears are common" Where in hell do you practice at, cause The Joint Commission wants to visit your hospital. Micrscopic tears do happen, big tears happen...but the field is considered contaminated and there is a very complex process to deal with it...unless of course, the folks in the OR or at the hospital cover it up.

But, just for the sake of argument let's follow your line of logic...so there's a percieved problem with the sterile field, the Surgeon, the 1st Assist or the Scrub Nurse thinks the gloves have been compromised, Well, Well, Well, everyone in the room who thinks the Surgeon (who has a cut/wound on his/her hand) needs to let the Primary Care physician know that the patient has a potential infection from the break of sterility in the field, raise your hands. Now, everyone in the room who saw, or even suspected a break in the sterile field (because the Surgeon said "Oh, crap...there's a leak in my glove...or I tore my glove, or anything that resembles a tear in a glove) and thinks the surgery should continue, raise your hand.

Okay, now that we have some voting results...let's go onto the clincher...everyone in the room who is willing to believe that the same bizarre set of circumstances could occur in the same OR with the same Surgeon by pure chance...please raise your hand.

I'm sure the hospital's Risk Manager is drinking heavily right about now, as is the poor schmuck who sold the Surgeon his malpractice policy.

Well, RT, the article said they were "microscopic" tears. If they're using the word "microscopic" correctly, that means (by definition) that the tears could not have been seen by the naked eye.

That said, I agree with you and all of the commenters who think we haven't been told the whole story.

I think they should have released the surgeon's name. Why protect someone if their acts were truly that negligent? Oh, that's right... he'll just quietly start performing surgeries again at a different hospital!

Emily, the article does not indicate the surgeon had sores on his hands - it indicated he had inflammation on his hands. Inflammation does not automatically mean there is a sore, or even an infection. Many things can cause inflammation. Staph epi (the bacteria that was on his hands), lives on skin - I bet if we swabbed your hands, we'd find Staph epi on your hands right now. It's a very common bacteria.

That said, obviously there was a failure in the process somewhere -- whether it be the microscopic tears in the gloves, improper scrub technique, etc., etc. Hopefully the failure(s) will be found and the problem rectified so that this doesn't happen again.

Most importantly, I hope those affected recover quickly.

They do...gloves have expiry dates. Wonder if they were old? That could happen.

Not suppose to...stocks are suppose to be checked routinely (daily) and expired materials, medications, etc. exchanged for current ones. Also Surgeons have what are known as "preference cards" individually constructed and unique to the specific procedure cards or print out that specify all the materials the Surgeon wants at the table during the procedures and it includes size and style of gloves. Surgeons are just crazy about "preference cards" and they do not suffer substitutions gladly. The process in the OR is highly controlled (or at least is suppose to be), if you ever wanted to meet a Nurse Crochet type, you want to hang out with a Scrub Nurse. They are the "Mother Hen" of the OR and there's no getting nothing by them. Cross the Scrub Nurse at your own peril.

So this whole event sounds like failures on several levels; individually and institutionally. Them folks is in a heap of trouble.

Did Dr scrub his hands well with surgical soap or Phisohex or had he not heard aboutJ

Joseph Lister?

Try Pakistan.

OR from a Compunding Pharmacy making something for years they are not licensed to make, while they know they are not doing it well, while people notify the gubmint from time to time and are ignored, and the Docs, the clinics and hospitals use them anyway because they are cheaper so they can put the margin saved in their pockets.

They also sell medical gloves in the dollar stores. Wonder if they purchased in bulk from the same distribution center to save money?

Oh, come on! This is getting silly. You are talking through your hat. They must buy from certain medical products suppliers who test the products.

Canceling a case is a big deal. Ultimately this is a lose-lose situation for the Doc. He/She could cancel the operations of desperately sick patients with advanced cardiac disease, and get blamed for not meeting his/her obligations to the patients just because of a minor infection that is going to be scrubbed and covered with sterile gloves anyway -or the doc can do the operation and if a freakish sequence of infections occur get "disciplined by the medical board."

Staph is hardly a minor infection.

Los Angeles is a big place, a lot of doctors, indeed, a lot of heart surgeons. I don't think taking one heart surgeon out of service while his infection clears will impact patient care much.

Doctors get sick, break bones skiing, die in car accidents, die of unexpected heart attacks, commit suicide just like the rest of the population and all of these take the doctor out of the "available" pool unexpectedly (in some cases, permanently). If Los Angeles doesn't have enough heart surgeons to not put patients at risk every time one of those events happens, that's the problem. Imagine how long it takes to create a "new" heart surgeon to replace one that was unexpectedly killed in a car accident - would patients be at risk in Los Angeles until she was replaced?

Yes, We had a major clinic nearby the Doc running it was doing eye surgery. Had famous people from acroos the country as patients. Reputation was fabulous. Was sport sky-diving. Got a bad chute. Died and of course that through the schule off for a lot of people. So give the patients the choice, I can kill you now with my infection, or we can reschedule and you might not die. I believe the Doc has more to tell than just lousy gloves.

Many years ago, my father was scheduled to have by-pass surgery from a "star" doctor at the hospital he was at. The doctor's schedule was filled for the whole day, and my father got bumped off his list. Another doctor did the surgery on the day it was scheduled for, and my father was very happy with the change. The replacement doctor was able to spend more time later during rounds to make sure my father was healing properly.

The point I am trying to make is that this Hollywood doctor's patients could have been rescheduled with other doctors, since he had an infection.

No doctor wants another doctor scratching their initials on their patients heart.

Yes, this is just the genius of the marketplace at work. No need for any government involvement. Doctor gives patients serious infections or kills them outright, so they don't bring their business back to him. Who could possibly object to this approach to medical services? /snark

Agree. Also since gloves are no longer made of latex I don't believe the memory (elasticity) is as reliable as it was when they were latex. I believe Cedars about the microscopic tears in surgical gloves. Whoever mentioned risk of the surgeons is also very astute. Every time the integrity of the skin is compromised risk of infection increases. Look at surgeons and scrub nurses hands if you (this isn't directed specifically at you elivaa) have a mind.. many of them look atrocious. Daily scrubbing with caustic soaps does a job (causes micro tears in the skin) , do it for years and chronic dermatological problems occur. We used to use razors to shave the skin of all hair prepping a patient for surgery, now we only use an electric razor and get just the longest hair, less infections. Also be aware of the multi-drug resistent bacteria we are now dealing with. Infections are a big deal especially hospital acquired ones. This surgeon should not have operated with inflamed or infected hands. Advice, be sure your surgery is necessary and be aware of the risks. Most dermatologists will tell you when bathing wash with soap only your armpits, groin/butt and feet. Letting the spray from a shower clean the rest is sufficient without getting rid of protective oils. Take care of your skin its your largest organ. And for the life of me I have no idea what Obama has to do with this. As for condoms, something to think about huh, we've known for decades that they are not 100% effective but, they're in the 90% range.

Gloves have an expiry date. Wonder if they were old? It could happen...

Medical supplies are stored in storage rooms. There are no windows. And the rate they go through supplies, there would be no old stock laying around. Not saying that some supplier didn't send them any. They probably bought counterfeit gloves.

The primary purpose of doctors and hospitals is to cure people, which they do the vast majority of the time. The primary purpose of guns is to kill people, which they do the vast majority of the time.

Yeah, those are exactly the same.

You got that right - restrict access to doctors and hospitals (oh, wait, that's what the new Obamacare is going to do, right/) Anyway, this is an outrage - what happened to doctors sterilizing even if they are wearing gloves?

I just hope that the patients have good, hungry lawyers - apologizing to the patient isn't going to get it!

@EarlyOut

You are incorrect that the primary purpose of guns is to "kill people". You have completely ignored other uses that are far more common. You ignored hunting (both for sustenance and for sport) and pure shooting sports (such as target shooting). "Shooting" sports has been a part of the Olympics since the inception of the modern Olympics in 1896 - and not a single one of these Olympics has included the "shooting humans to kill them" event or anything resembling it.

The number of shots fired, intentionally or accidentally, at a human being as a percentage of total shots fired is tiny.

One rarely sees anyone hunting for sustenance with a handgun. It's really the wrong tool for the job. Hunting for sport and target shooting accomplish no purpose. Find another hobby.

And golf & football accomplish what? Strange logic there.

Yes, we all know stories about the tragic deaths of innocent bystanders at golf tournaments.

Folks, we endure the highest rate of gun violence in the civilized world. Other nations look at us, and wonder what kind of mass insanity we're suffering from. The gun lovers try to tell us that more guns are the answer. They try to tell us that we can't get rid of guns because doctors kill people too, or because cars kill people too, or because some people enjoy putting little holes in pieces of paper with bullets, or because some people enjoy hunting deer. Enough, already.

Living without guns would be great if nobody had a gun. Since crazy people typically have guns, sane people need to even the playing field.

If you outlaw guns, you are only taking them away from law abiding people who weren't going to do anything anyway. Violent people will still get them somehow.

Plus, a lot of people just keep them and rarely shoot them. If a burgler went into my parent's house, they probably wouldn't bother shooting bullets at them. The dog and the beat'em sticks would work just fine. The bullets are only for a select few crazies who might bother them.

Unfortunately it is not just uncleanliness; although, I am sure that it is much worse today. But the bacteria are much stronger and more insidious than ever before. We created them and we can't kill them. This will only get worse as the population continues to grow older and sicker than ever before. Just remember; these five patients would have died of natural causes 40 - 50 years ago. Our culture of "we can fix anything" in the health care arena has done us all a huge disservice.

@FlamingoRoad

Do you have a cite for your claim that 30 years ago (1982) surgical teams were fired if their patient got an infection? That seems unlikely to me. Infection has always been a significant risk of surgery and it seems that there would be no surgeons left after a few months of this policy - and I don't recall such an acute shortage of surgeons over the past years (i.e., a career that lasts a few months after many years of education).

Imagine how expensive medicine would be if such a policy were in place. Simple surgeries would have to cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars JUST for the surgeons fees so she could pay off here student loans before being fired a few months after starting their practice. Also, imagine how inexperienced surgeons would be - it would be rare to find one with more than a few months experience (that would be worse than the infections).

Yeah, then the nurse gets black balled and pretty soon fired cause the hospital or surgeon just lost money. Happens a lot in the hospitals. They make it to look as if the nurse in the problem to cover for the surgeon and the hospital. It's about volume and money.

They will cover any infection with gloves, which protects the hospital from liability. If someone got an infection, they blame it on the glove maker. The glove maker will blame it on a supplier who has limited insurance. The supplier pays out a few thousand dollars, go bankrupt, then incorporates as a different company a month later, so they can continue supplying the glove maker.

Except that the surgeon had an active staph infected lesion on his hand. That makes him the smoking gun.

where in the article did it say he had a lesion?

eric: Some people seem to confuse "inflammation" with sore or lesion.

yeah, youre right. Honestly, I have a tough time seeing how inflammation spread this infection. Ive touched cellulitis with my bare hands more times than I could count and never gotten infected...the idea is ludicrous

I think this article is skipping some important detail...

eric, Yeah. My guess is that the bacteria got introduced to the heart valves somehow, and then, because of the biofilm that Staph epi produces, it was able to flourish on the artificial valve.

Staph epi is a normal flora - more than likely, every single person in the operating room (including the patients) and all staff that helped care for the patients before and after surgery, carries Staph epi on them.

If the problem was micro-tears in the gloves, I'd be looking into switching suppliers (and the manufacturer ought to look at their quality control). Yeah, they need to be sure that there were no breeches in scrub protocol and hand washing protocol when caring for these patients, and address that if there were failures in this area.

Seriously though, based on what we know in the article - I can't really place blame anywhere.

I do hope the patients recover without further complications.

I've heard that prior to European exploration, syphillis was a basically harmless skin infection in the tropics. When it got moved to Europe (colder) it found its way into warmer parts of the human body and evolved into a deadly pathogen. I imagine that staph on intact bare skin is way different than staph on heart valves.