In short
The question of how a retained item after surgery is examined is the reading, in the same record, of the count form and the piece in the body. The image on radiology is not the judgment itself. A claim of a sponge, a compress, a needle or an instrument fragment opens a debate if it conflicts with the closing line of the count. Damages and statistics are not in this text.
The image is not read so that it will pass of its own accord into a finding of fault. If the count form is complete, the claim becomes harder. If the form and the film conflict, the two are examined together. If the piece was thrown away, the claim of type and size weakens. Cutting of the bile duct is not a foreign body.
What the count form shows
The count of sponges and instruments in the operating theatre is the record kept before the incision is closed. The form should hold the opening number, what was added and the closing numbers. A "complete" stamp does not show the numbers. If the form and the nursing note conflict, it is asked which was written during the procedure. A line corrected later grows the debate if it carries no trace of the correction. The whole patient file is requested through a request for the patient file. The discharge summary does not take the place of the count form.
The surgeon's note writing that the count was complete does not by itself explain a metal or textile image on radiology. The two records are read side by side. The document should show, with the date and the file number, which operation the count belongs to. If there is no document, a number is not invented. The minutes may write who closed the count. If there are no minutes, closure is not assumed. The general post-operative list sits under harm after surgery. This text does not rewrite that list.
The image and the piece removed
A tomography or ultrasound taken at a second centre may show the place of the piece. The raw record of the image speaks more than the sentence of the report. If the report says suspicion of a foreign body, the suspicion does not lock the type of piece. If the piece was removed, the note of the operation that removed it, a photograph of the piece and the pathology or macroscopic description are kept. If the piece was thrown away, the claim of type and size weakens. If there is a risk of destruction, the route of preservation is considered. Preservation is not the finding of fault in the main action. Preservation of a lost piece sits under preservation of evidence.
Whether the piece belongs to that operation is filtered with earlier operations and the history of trauma. Material left from an old procedure cannot be written onto the count of the last operation. It is not said that it was retained before the chain of dates is built. An invoice may show the cost of the second image. An invoice does not prove that the piece was left in that operation. The register may show the hospital's name. The register does not take the place of the count form.
Causation and the institution
Not every pain is tied to the piece because the piece is there. Whether infection, bleeding or the second operation arose from this piece is a question for the expert. Damages are not discussed before the link between the departure from the standard and the harm is built. The frame of the heads sits under heads of damages. An amount is not added to this text. Statistics are not written.
The count is a joint record of the nurse and the surgeon. The hospital's counting policy and the physician's decision to incise may not be the same sentence of fault. The defendant changes with the type of institution. That choice is not closed here. The decision should write which procedure the piece was counted as belonging to. Fault is not treated as completed when there is no decision. The petition should show the conflict in the count and the harm separately. A single sentence is not treated as having built causation. Injury to the bile duct sits under the bile duct. It is not mixed up with a foreign body.
The record of the second operation
Treatment that was necessary to remove the piece is debated among the heads of loss. Which head will be claimed is under the damages heading. This text does not rewrite the list of heads. The operation note of the institution that removed it, and a photograph of the piece, are kept. If there is no note, the second operation is not an admission of the first count. Service separates, from the endorsement, the writing by which the hospital records were requested. If there is no endorsement, the records are not treated as having been requested. The application should show, with the discharge summary, which operation date it concerns. If there is no date, a date is not invented. The contract may be the admission document between the hospital and the patient. The contract does not prove that the count was complete.
Where the item is read from
The count form and the image stand side by side. Damages and statistics are not written. The image on the film is not counted as a judgment. The amount for the piece removed is not added to this text.
The office in Çankaya does not choose the authority the file will go to.
Conclusion
How a retained item after surgery is examined is answered with the count form, the image and, if there is one, the piece removed. The image is not a judgment. Damages and statistics are not written. The framework sits on the health law page. The basis is the Turkish Code of Obligations and Law No. 1219.