Duty Of Care Observation

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.

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

In the Code of Ethics for Nurses provision 4 states “The nurse has authority, accountability, and responsibility for nursing practice; makes decisions; and takes action consistent with the obligation to promote health and to provide optimal care.” This was not done, there was no regard for human life. The patients in the hospital were treated as a burden. A meeting was held where the doctors agreed that

The two provisions from the Nursing Code of Ethics that were violated are Provision 2 and 3. Provision 2 states “the nurse’s primary commitment is to the patient, whether an individual, family, group, community, or population” (Brown, Lachman & Swanson, 2015). Provision 2 focuses on “the nurse’s obligation to assure the primacy of the patient’s interests regardless of conflicts that arise between clinicians or patient and family”(Brown, Lachman & Swanson, 2015). Provision 2 was violated because the nurses

This duty was then breached. Either care was not administered, or it was ministered improperly. The quality of the care is established through the testimony of expert testimony from other doctors.

As noted, on February 29, 2016, the patient was nonetheless admitted to the UCR hospitalist. This was a senior member of the UCR hospitalist team who knew or should have known all of the policies and procedures for admission, and should never have admitted the patient as an attending to the hospital. In so doing, he was directly and deliberately interfering with the doctor patient relationship.

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

Beneficence compounded by nurse-physician communication created ethical problems in this case. Mainly, Joanna’s assessment of Mrs. Kelly being ignored by the resident physician and the nursing supervisor. Joanna worked within the scope and standards of practice, she assessed, evaluated, and monitored her patient’s condition. She then reported her findings to the resident twice, and also sought nursing support from her shift supervisor. After Joanna’s first call to the resident, and her continued concern she needed to advocate in a proactive manner. Continuing her assessment of Mrs. Kelly to include palpation and auscultation could have offered additional clinical information enabling her to articulate the problem to the resident and nursing supervisor.

Duty of care in my own work role is to ensure that my service users are given quality care services always, and that I must follow the codes of practice and policies and practices of my organisation. It is my responsibility to keep my knowledge and understanding up-to-date regarding these policies.

`SHC 34 PRICIPLES FOR IMPLEMENTING DUTY OF CARE IN HEALTH, SOCIAL CARE OR CHILDRREN’S AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SETTINGS

We have always been told to give people second chances, well when does that stop? What line do people have to cross to not get a second chance? A mistake could cost a life, or permanently change one life or several lives. In the case of Dennis Quaid, it could have taken both his twins lives. The twins had to be treated with heparin and were supposed to be given 10 mL instead received 10,000 mL, that is 1,000 times the needed amount. The hospital stated later that nobody checked the dosage at the supplier or the pediatric center. This is only one example of how mistakes happen when protocols are not followed. Should the doctors and pediatricians get a second chance, what if this happened and they didn't realize it in time? The doctors didn't end up losing their licenses, but the hospital was sued for $750,000. The twins could have died or suffered permanent damage. Obviously, more could have been done to prevent this accident. The doctors, nurses and other medical professionals have to be held to higher standards when lives are on the line.

Ethical principals are the seed of which nursing flourishes from. Many ethical principals were involved and dishonored in this case such as, justice, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, confidentiality and fidelity (Burkhardt et al., 2014). I believe justice was the main principal involved as the entire ethical predicament was revolved around unjust behavior and treatment of the residents. The residents were treated poorly and given unequal rights as a causation of their illnesses. Autonomy, an essential piece of human rights was also being violated in this ethical dilemma. The residents did not have any choice or independence in their care or how they were being treated. Beneficence and non-maleficence are significant dynamics of this ethical situation, as the health care providers needed to reflect on how they can have the maximum benefit while diminishing possible damage to the residents (Burkhardt et al., 2014). Our actions as nurses should always be beneficent and non maleficent, continuously being kind, compassionate and doing what is in their best interest as well a removing and preventing harm. Confidentiality is a key component of nursing and it was blatantly being violated as the health care

This can be read as a key ethical question to many healthcare case studies because of the errors and situations that occur. One of the explanations for this occurrence may be the overwhelming workload, chaotic environment and lack of individual attention prescribed to each patient. These issues can cause a disruption to the ethical principle of Beneficence. The principle of Beneficence calls to action the act of helping others and having compassion for the patients. This principle can be threatened when a doctor or caretaker is overworked and unable to effectively manage the series of patients and work they are assigned to take on. I believe that the admitting doctor did not initially catch the error of not calling for the specific drug need because he was more focused on getting Mr. Londborg stable and on the medication to treat his initial and present condition before worrying about the preventative medication. In addition, the doctor was so focused on helping everyone all at once that he was blind to the small details and loose ends that needed to be taken care

We were unable to work collaboratively in the best interest of the patients. It surprised me that working toward the same goal does not mean teamwork will automatically happen. Prior to this experience, I assumed that when you are working towards the same goal, team work happens easily and I did not need to actively facilitate it. This has given me a new appreciation that it is my responsibility to promote collaboration instead of just expecting it. This experience has also affirmed for me the importance of effective communication. Any breakdown in communication has negative consequences for the planned goal. Communication is a skill that needs always needs to be worked on to be

As a doctor, to prepare myself to take on this case I would have to process a substantial amount of information and use my best judgment to conceive what the best plan of action regarding this case should be. Reviewing the four key principles in medical ethics: nonmaleficience, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice, would prove to be very helpful. After reviewing and consulting with my peers I would most likely conclude that the patient is the one receiving the service and is to be put first above all other factors contributing to the situation.