Antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Faulty scopes. There are some aspects of a recent deadly superbug outbreak that were outside of UCLA’s control.
But the university is to blame for a lack of transparency and breach of public trust surrounding the deadly bacteria.
In December, the first infected patient came to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center with CRE, or carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, a superbug that is resistant to antibiotics and kills about half of the people it infects. A scope used on the patient – which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently announced is difficult to clean properly because of the way it was designed – may have spread the bacteria to at least seven people and exposed almost 200 others. Two people infected with the bacteria have died.
After an internal investigation concluded in late January, it took several weeks to announce that almost 200 people were exposed to the potentially deadly bacteria.
Hospital staff waited weeks to inform some patients that they might be infected in what seems to have been an attempt to delay the announcement and protect their reputation. In fact, the hospital only started publicly talking about the superbug after the Los Angeles Times broke the news.
It should never be the responsibility of a newspaper or any outside organization to inform the public about major health concerns.
UCLA health officials have said that the outbreak does not constitute a major public health concern because the only people in danger of infection are patients who received medical treatment at the hospital with a duodenoscope, the medical instrument responsible for spreading the disease. But duodenoscopes are commonly used at hospitals across the country, making the issue a health concern far beyond UCLA.
UCLA’s public announcement led to increased scrutiny over duodenoscopes. The FDA has known about risks associated with the scopes for more than two years, but only warned doctors about the issues last week, the day after the UCLA outbreak was publicized.
The UCLA outbreak, then, played a key role in drawing attention to a national health concern. By withholding information about the outbreak, UCLA potentially endangered patients across the country who undergo procedures with the scope that spread the infection.
At a Friday press conference, UCLA doctors apologized for the “anxiety” the superbug had caused and ensured that their hospital is safe while avoiding questions about when the patients infected with CRE died.
Even if UCLA could not have done much to prevent the spread of the superbug, they failed to keep vulnerable patients and the public informed. That breach of trust is not easily overcome.
The public trusts medical institutions with their lives, and in return, hospitals have a responsibility to be as honest and transparent as possible, something UCLA failed to do.
Going forward, UCLA must do its part in the investigation and be as open as possible about the results. Only then can the hospital rebuild trust with the thousands of patients who rely on the medical center for treatment.
I have a big problem with this Editorial.
“Even if UCLA could not have done much to prevent the spread of the superbug, they failed to keep vulnerable patients and the public informed. That breach of trust is not easily overcome.”
Does it occur to you that they probably didn’t know UNTIL recently that it was the scope that caused the spread of infection? Honestly, one to two infections and possible deaths is not a remarkable observation, if you place it in the context of medicine and hospitals. For those doctors and nurses, how could they have known that it was that exact duodenoscope that was responsible? Everything, if you notice, is “in recent light” of something, whether its an investigation’s results, another death, or an FDA announcement. It’s not like they knew for such a long time, and wanted to keep it a secret. If you want to talk about trust, how about you not trusting the integrity of your medical professionals, let alone those who are a part of your community?
Furthermore, there’s a large culture in medicine about being diligent in finding answers and only coming to conclusions when you have proof, and that is a double-edged sword. As a patient, you want to know what you have ONLY if you know that your doctor is 99.99% sure that what you have is what you have. On the flip side of that, a hospital is not going to want to instigate a large-scale panic attack by announcing that a piece of its equipment POSSIBLY is causing a potentially fatal infection without knowing with a significant degree of certainty that that is actually the cause.
The UCLA Health system is not trying to deceive the public; it’s only doing its best to protect what they can and deliver their best services. Using this one incident that wasn’t even in their control to completely SMASH their reputation and instigate a game of pointing fingers and calling out “no trust” is, in my opinion, out of line, and quite frankly, not something a Bruin who really supports his/her school would do.
As UCLA students, we can be critical thinkers who are critically conscious, but we should be the FIRST to DEFEND UCLA, its brand, and its community, instead of being the FIRST to point out its flaws and CONDEMN it. The world cannot respect and stand in awe of UCLA if its own students aren’t willing to do the same or protect others from doing otherwise.
Bravo