Dr. Passanise Case Summary

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.

A nurse attending stated “during the morning’s second surgery, he actually dozed off. The nurse took him aside and recommended that he take a break, but he refused and returned to the operation.” The nurse here was in fault in more ways than one. This nurse should never allowed the doctor return back to operate on the patient, he should have been removed from the operating room immediately. The nurse should have

The district nursing team were now to be responsible for the wound care of an ulcer on the sole of her right foot on her impending discharge. She had previously attended the practice nurse and a podiatry service based within her local clinic. Due to a change in circumstances, she was now clearly housebound for the near future due to mobility issues. Prior to an arranged visit, the patient had called the nurse to advise her that she was pyrexial and was experiencing a pain in her right foot that was different from her normal neuropathic pain, which was often problematic. She was also finding it difficult to mobilise and was disinclined for diet but was taking oral fluids.

Aldina, thank you for the effort in describing the incident that occurred at Bright Road, and the implications this had for Bright Road and Dr. Fredericks. There were a few good points that you made when trying to support your report, first, you were able to clarify that Mr. Davis had made changes to his consent form prior to the treatment. Then, that Dr. Fredericks agreed that he relied on what he viewed as the patient’s verbal consent to proceed with the procedure, and that he probably did not look at the written consent before the surgery. You were able to identify that this procedure caused long-term harm to Mr. Davis, because he would have to use additional medication that can put him in danger, as well as the potential problem with the

For this week’s discussion I have read the article assigned this week regarding HIPAA violations. I will summarize the case against the physician and what the HIPAA law states. I will also discuss what the penalties are for a HIPAA violation and if this physician could have faced further charges.

For clinical week 9, I was assigned to the UMC Wound Care Clinic to view a different field of nursing. As soon as I arrived at the clinic the nurse told me that I could bounce around from patient room to patient room to view as many wounds and burns as possible. The first patient room that I went into was a young Hispanic man who had an infection on his right lateral thigh area that spread from the popliteal area to the greater trochanter. When I asked the patient what had happened he told me he was injured at work and the injury got infected, which he never went to the doctor to have it evaluated. So, basically the infection was eating away at his skin and muscles. The patient has to come to the wound clinic every day to get dressing changes.

One of the problems with malpractice is that sometimes we have a hard time recognizing it. We may not know what exactly constitutes medical malpractice, or what qualifies as medical malpractice. Even worse, we often don't know what our course of action should

The nurse practitioner in the case potentially violated fidelity to evidence-based practice. The most obvious dilemma was that she neglected her commitment to an evidence-based approach to managing a sore throat and potentially inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic despite a negative office rapid-strep test. This decision goes against the Code of Ethic for Nursing (provision eight) as it relates to a professional obligation to promote community health needs (American Nurses Association, 2015). Prescribing antibiotics inappropriately can contribute to resistant organisms in the community. In work by Hand (2013), "exposure to antibiotics in primary care is consistently associated with a subsequent twofold risk of antibiotic resistance" (p. 500).

The facts of this case are that Dr. Guiles who is self-conscious of his prostate cancer diagnosis is treated horrendously when he finally decides to have surgery ( Buchbinder, Shanks & Buchbinder, 2014). Considering that Dr. Guiles is already sensitive about his condition, his unbearable symptoms are not helping matters (Buchbinder et al, 2014). Upon arrival at the hospital, he is treated subpar. The admitting clerk is rude and unbecoming to a patient who isn’t feeling well and who is embarrassed about his sickness (Buchbinder et al., 2014). To make matters worse, he has to find his own way up to the floor by walking, which causes him to be even later in checking in because of the need to stop frequently to urinate as well as having difficulty in walking (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Once he arrives on the floor, the charge nurse is not welcoming and unprofessional (Buchbinder et al., 2014). After figuring out what to do with the paperwork; and the nurse aide delivers Dr. Guiles to his room, the nurse aide does not offer to help settle him in (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Therefore, Dr. Guiles is faced with battling obnoxious family members who are on his bed and to make matters worse someone is in the bathroom which doesn’t help his need of having to frequently urinate (Buchbinder et al., 2014). When the issues are brought up to the charge nurse, the charge nurse accuses Dr. Guiles of wanting preferential treatment

M was taking a look at his leg that was injured but seemed to be healing. All was thought to be well until one office visit the doctor went across the hall to check on another patient who seemed to have an infected leg. The doctor left the door open where confidentiality here was obviously not being taking into consideration for the patient he was seeing as well as others who were able to hear them. Since the door was open, his parents noticed that he did not change his gloves while entering that other room and came back to check on their son with no gloves on. Dr. M was concerned about Jacobs leg and told him to come back the following week while treating it with antibiotics. The following week he comes back only to see that he has developed osteomyelitis. This was the same infection that the other patient developed while under the care of his supervision. Jacobs delay in his recover cost him the opportunity to play football and a college scholarship. Jacobs’s parents then resorted to suing Dr. M because of his negligence and lack of medical

Between early June 1951 and Henrietta’s death on October 4, 1951, doctors involved in her treatment would continue to violate ethics code. Henrietta complained of discomfort in early June that morphed into pain. During the 1950s, segregation was still occurring in the country (Skloot, 2010, p. 63). Therefore, it was common for black patients to not question white professionals (Skloot, 2010, p. 63). It was also common practice for doctors to withhold information from patients so they would not be upset or confused by medical terms such as cancer (Skloot, 2010, p. 63). Within two months, the pain was so severe she could be heard screaming a block away from her home (Skloot, 2010, p. 65). By the time doctors examined her properly, she was inoperable and a “stony hard mass” (Skloot, 2010, p. 64) could be felt on her abdomen. The doctors during previous follow up visits wrote notes about her complaints but still stated no evidence of reoccurrence. Therefore, these unnamed doctors did not demonstrate appropriate professionalism because they neglected to perform a thorough exam required to give Henrietta a proper diagnosis breaching codes: 1.04 integrity, 1.07a exploitative relationship, 2.09 treatment/intervention

The underlying issues in both cases are racial discrimination. For Cheryl Boulden in the affirmative action case the issue is being “an African American woman among the good ol’ boys in Indiana.” She was recruited because of race and her permanent handicap was seen as an asset for a diversity program lacking any. Yet these qualities made her a target of racism. Susan Finn’s ethnic discrimination presents a dilemma of how to deal with a contract physician’s abusive behavior “toward Hispanics and female staff as well as patients” (Reeves, 2006, p. 79). While the issues of racial and gender discrimination is not unusual, the failure of these agencies to address multiple complaints is.

They felt that the hospital should be held responsible for employing Dr. Alexander and placing him in the emergency room, when clearly he was not qualified to perform Orthopedic medicine which was needed. Dr. Alexander also didn't seek out other colleagues for their advice or for someone who specialized in this condition. After investigating further the Darling's felt that the hospital had inadequate policy and procedure information in place that the Dr. and other medical staff could have referred to if they had questions or concerns.

Larson, Gutglass, Erickson, Bonville & Larson, S.C., Milwaukee; Michael P. Malone, Hinshaw & Culbertson, L.L.P., Milwaukee. Their claim was that the infection was told to Mrs. Mayo and her husband and that all the options were discussed and gone over properly. Their claim was that at the time they believed the only way to truly treat the infection and keep the infection from spreading was to amputate of off the limbs. That informed consent was given properly and that everything was done according to procedure. They also stated Dr. Jaffe & Dr. Gibson performed “a logical and methodical workup of their patient,” and gave Mayo adequate treatment based on the information they had at the

During the home health observation day, there were several opportunities to observe a variety of patients with varying levels of functioning ability, different illnesses, and different needs and levels of interaction with the nurse. The first patient seen was a seventy-three year old Caucasian female with an ulcer on her right heel. Several weeks prior, she had scratched her left leg and she also had several small wounds on her left leg. The orders were to clean and redress the ulcer. She has a history of end stage renal disease, pneumonia, weakness, diabetes, dialysis, and right hip fracture. Upon entering the home, the patient was found to be sitting in a wheel chair in the living room watching television with her husband close by her side. She greeted the nurse with a smile and began to update her on her current condition. Her heel was “hurting” and she rated her pain an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. She also had some “swelling” that she could not “get to go away; because, she could not get up and walk. They need to fix my foot so that I can get up and get around.” She told the nurse that she had been to see the doctor “yesterday” and the doctor had given her a written order that she wanted her to see. The order was written for an evaluation for a soft pressure shoe fitting. The nurse read the order to