THE MEADOWS of Wickenburg – Wrongful Death Lawsuit Deposition 3

Posted on December 8, 2008 by  
Filed under Blog · Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is the third YouTube segment of the videotaped deposition of Dr. Stephen Swift Brockway, formerly of THE MEADOWS of Wickenburg, taken for the wrongful death/medical malpractice lawsuit, BURNE v THE MEADOWS. Segments 1,2 and 4 are also available on YouTube and are suggested viewing. It is recommended they be watched in chronological order (1,2,3,4) in order to follow the deposition testimony easily. THE MEADOWS of Wickenburg is the renowned, remote and private facility that has treated such glitterati and public figures as Rush Limbaugh, Kate Moss, Elle MacPherson, Cindy McCain, and Eric Benet.

In November 2004, Dr. Brockway was an in-house, on-staff Psychiatrist at The Meadows of Wickenburg and was the attending psychiatrist for R. Matthew “Matt” Burne who died from suicide while an inpatient there on November 28, 2004.

Watch Dr. Brockway give sworn deposition testimony regarding THE MEADOWS of Wickenburg’s unlocked and unsecured Acute Unit, their open campus philosophy, his uncertainty about closed-circuit cameras, his interpretation of Meadows’ Policy #NSG750, and his clinical belief and judgment that (quote), “If we have 70 patients at The Meadows, there might be 20 at any one time that have suicidal ideation. So it’s a matter of degree. I put people on eye-to-eye when it’s a fairly serious suicidal ideation.” Who determines what a “serious suicidal ideation” looks like, and shouldn’t ALL suicidal ideation at a $1000.00+/day hospital or ANY hospital be taken seriously and patients protected?

Please note Dr. Brockway’s discussion of “highly suicidal” patients at the 10:27:42 marker. Policy NSG750 does not differentiate between levels of suicidality as who can discern that? All this policy refers to is SOME suicidal ideation, whether in a clinician’s eyes it be severe, mild, serious, feeting, etc.

Additionally, please note Dr. Brockway’s testimony at the 10:29:50 marker where he states, “If someone has SOME suicidal ideation, we keep them in Acute Care.” If this was one of the reasons why Matt Burne was – and other patients are – retained on the Acute Care Wing (i.e. his/their having “some suicidal ideation, “) then why didn’t this thinking continue through and apply to placing Matt on Eye-to-Eye observation per MEADOWS’ policy #NSG750 that clearly states, “This level is for patients with SOME suicidal ideation, or other fragile patients needing constant support?” If there “might be 20 patients at any one time that have suicidal ideation” (per Brockway’s deposition), then shouldn’t they ALL be on Eye-to-Eye per this policy? How can having “some suicidal ideation” be the basis for retaining a patient on the Acute Wing yet be ignored when applying policy NSG750 that lists it as a reason for using Eye-to-Eye observation in the first place? Can a facility/doctor pick and choose the meaning of “some suicidal ideation” for various situations?

Lastly, at the 10:30:47 marker, Dr. Stephen Brockway acknowledges and discusses Matt’s “fluctuating clinical picture.” This is consistent with the ebb and flow/fluctuation of suicidality. Isn’t it KEY to keep patients safe when they have a “fluctuating clinical picture,” particularly with suicidal ideation that is known to ebb and flow? And, when there is a policy in place to do so?

Additional and detailed information about this video will be added periodically. Please check back for an updates. For more information go to Break the Silence at: www.Break-the-Silence.org

Plaintiff’s Attorney, Skip Simpson of Frisco, TX (www.skipsimpson.com)conducted this deposition in Wickenburg, AZ.

Duration : 0:6:3


[youtube TiNlkWZtoag]

Comments

Leave a Reply