Bright Road Case Summary

The initial problem with Lewis Blackman's case was that lewis was administered inappropriate medication. First he was given a strong dose of opioid pain medication and on top of that prescribed an adult IV painkiller called Toradol. His medication was being increase even though it was not affecting the patient relieve pain. The nurses fail to diagnose the patient's pain and reevaluate him on his pain status. Followed by that Lewis was having trouble breathing, that is one of the first priorities for a nurse. Yet they assume because he had a history of asthma, him having affected breathing was normal. Therefore, his vital signs, pulse oximeter, were compromised the day after surgery from 90 to 85 which is low. The hospital was not concerned

The nurse should have never allowed the doctor to proceed in that state. If she would have stopped him the injuries to Mr. Hicks would not have happened. No doctor should ever be allowed to operate in that state he was in at that time. Not only is it dangerous it in ethically wrong of the doctor to perform such a reckless act.

This case is extremely relevant to what is known as the four D’s of negligence; duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages. Duty is when a doctor and a patient have formed a relationship and said doctor has taken on the responsibility of taking care of the patient. Dereliction or failure to perform a duty, there must be some kind of proof that the doctor somehow neglected the doctor neglected the patient. Direct cause, there must be some kind of proof that what happened to the patient was a direct cause of how the doctor conducted himself or his failure to act which resulted in injury. Damages a patient must prove that harm was incurred by the direct result of the physicians actions.

The physicians offered to sublease the nuclear camera to the hospital, this was a violation of the Stark Law. Under the Stark Law physicians are prohibited from completing any acts under Medicare and Medicaid that are for financial interest or gain. Dr. S. and Dr. V. crossed a thin line of what was lawful and unlawful, since the physicians already had partnership with the hospital, to gain immunity for admitting patients to the hospital, they let them use the nuclear camera as a tradeoff. This nuclear camera was used for Medicare patients and Medicare was billed for services. The problem with this, since the physicians were in affiliation with the hospital a financial

The two ethical dilemmas that stick out to me in the case are patient autonomy, and distributive justice. Patient autonomy is the patient’s right to make decisions about their care, including whether to accept or decline treatment (Taylor, 2014). Because the patient did not fully understand the information relayed in the consent form or the procedure, her patient autonomy may have been violated. This also may mean the consent form may not be valid. A signed consent form from a patient affords the hospital with an assumed duty to care for that patient (as cited Taylor, 2014). And the patient has given the medical professional permission to provide treatment. Therefore, it is important that the patient fully understands and can communicate that understanding when consenting to

The process of consent should apply not only to surgical procedures but all clinical procedures and examinations which involve any form of touching. This must not mean more forms: it means more communication. As part of the process of obtaining consent, except when they have indicated otherwise, patients should be given sufficient information about what is to take place, the risks, uncertainties, and possible negative consequences of the proposed treatment, about any alternatives and about the likely outcome, to enable them to make a choice about how to proceed.”5

Contrary to the alleged, Dr. Brock refuted the claim, defending that he never established a doctor-patient relationship with Anita, which relieves him of liability. In order to validate his refute, Dr. Brock provided four factual elements that were supported by his counterparts; Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham. The four elements that were presented in the affidavit included: (1) That there has never been a doctor-patient relationship between Dr. Brock and Anita Oliver, (2) Dr. Brock has never seen or talked to Anita or Cathy Oliver, (3) Dr. Brock was not employed, engaged or requested to serve as a consultant to treat Anita, (4) and Dr. Brock was not employed or engaged to consult with doctors treating Anita, concerning complaints or medical problems. In order to support Dr. Brock’s refute, Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham provided affidavit’s as

University Hospital is a well known hospital with a level 1 trauma treatment center for the tri-county area of a northwestern state, the hospital enjoys the fact they are known for their promising reputation among healthcare professionals and the public they serve. Jan Adams is an OR supervisor that has been working there for ten years, as a professional she makes surgeons follow protocol as required and enjoys working with trauma patients. One Friday night, which is the busiest day of the week for the trauma department; the unit was notified that a helicopter was on its way with a 42 year old man who had been in a car accident. Shortly after the patient arrived to the trauma center, the resident and other medical staff noted that he was in very bad physical conditions, needed immediate surgery or otherwise he was going to die. The issue was that the on call surgeon had to be present during the surgery and had not yet arrived, but regardless of the matter and protocol they proceeded with medically treating the patient immediately. The concern is that in doing so they violated medical procedures and put the patients safety at risk, this lead to a long list of ethical issues for example, patient well-being, impaired healthcare professional, adherence to professional codes of ethical conduct, adherence to the organization’s mission statement, ethical standards, and values statements, management’s role and responsibility, failure

I believe that the hospital should take the blame for the damages and suffering that Kelly Niles endured. This decision reflects the quality of care that Niles received while he was at the hospital and also correlates to his physical status. The neurosurgeons stated that his status would have been better if they got to him sooner and were able to treat him in time, but due to the negligence throughout his whole treatment he is left with the ability to only move his eyes and neck. The fact that there was doubt that Kelly would survive the next few days after his surgery supports my decision that what the court ruled was reasonable and appropriate. Kelly “remained in a coma for 46 days before gradually regaining consciousness.” Kelly is totally disabled and his condition can’t ever be improved with medical attention or surgical treatments which furthers my final decision (“Niles v. City of San Rafael,”

On 08/07/2016 I, Deputy Daniel Pruitt was dispatched to 4975 Rocky Point Road for a curglary compalint.

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

The men believed they were receiving medical care from the government, not participation in an experimental research study. The doctors and nurse Evers failed to explain important information such as the purpose, the risks and benefits, alternative procedures, and a statement that offered the individuals opportunity to ask questions of concern and their ability to withdraw at any time during the experiment. Comprehension and understanding of the words of the procedures were changed (spinal taps --- back shots) to make the therapies they were receiving seem less harmful, but instead more

After viewing The Lobotomist, it makes me realize how grateful I am for the policies currently in place for research and approval. This video demonstrated how the treatment of patients and other physician’s opinions have progressed for the better. What really stood out to me was that during that time period, it was considered unethical to publically criticize another physician. In current time, individuals have no problem critiquing each other. It is encouraged to get opinions from others colleagues and specialist. The video also discussed how physicians had control over whatever they wanted to do to patients. They did not even need to give informed consent for their testing or procedures. It baffles me that patients were not even told what

The main focus of this assignment is to examine the ethical, legal and professional frameworks, along with interprofessional collaboration in the provision of postoperative care to a gentleman who was refusing observations and how this influences and shapes professional practice.

25). Unfortunately, the article regarding Mr. Benson’s case did not give detail on whether or not proper documentation had occurred. However, one can assume documentation was not done properly as the wrong leg had been amputated. If proper documentation had been completed in Mr. Benson’s case, it is possible someone besides the surgeon may have caught the wrong leg was about to be amputated. An example of proper documentation would be the consenting of the patient for surgery. Mr. Benson had to have been consented for surgery, which means a doctor or a nurse practioner would discussed with the patient which leg was to be amputated, signs and symptoms of complications and what to expect after surgery. If there was any question once the patient was in the operating room, which leg to amputate, anyone could have looked in the patient’s chart to see what Mr. Benson had been consented for. Documentation of the time out could have also prevented Mr. Benson from having the wrong leg amputated. The reason being is, everyone involved in the case would have stopped and made sure the right patient was in the operating room and the right surgery was to be performed so it could be documented this act was completed. Not only proper documentation could have prevented this horrible act but also the help of the nurses could have prevented a mistake like this from happening.