Jean Callow Age 87: A Case Study

This case involves Mr. Horton, his wife, and his mother in law. While Mr. Horton was a patient at Niagara fall memorial medical center the nurses noted in his medical records that he was dizzy, confused and unable to focus. Horton was in a two story private room with a window

During interview Ms. Stoker was alert, aware of surroundings, and answered all questions appropriately and independently. During the visit Ms. Stoker dry heaved into a garbage bucket, and visited the restroom once. The worker was at the residence for about 2 hours. Initially Ms. Stoker was shaking uncontrollable to the point of shaking the entire bed. At the end of the visit the shaking had stopped and Ms. Stoker was smiling and interaction with worker while talking about DELETEbeing a wife and mother. During visit Ms. Stoker received a call from Alacare Home Health. She informed them she was out of her pain medicine but did not inform them she was out of all medicine. Alacare called the pharmacy and was informed she did

At 1005 this clinician made contact with the patients CPS caseworker who reports he was scheduled to meet with the son at his daycare. He reports he met with her roommate who made him aware the patient was taken away from the home by ambulance. In addition, the roommate also reported

The RP stated that the resident is very lucid, alert, and was very uncomfortable about going in her diaper. The RP stated the resident is fond of sports and enjoys watching sports on the television. The RP stated the resident was enjoying the television when she was told she had to go to bed. When she complained a caregiver named Robert go into the resident's face and told her that she was going to bed. According to the RP the resident was intimidated by the caregiver. Although the resident no longer lives in the facility she fears that the caregiver will find and harm her. The reporting party stated on one occasion the resident was having respiratory problems and the facility contacted the RP. The RP questioned that staff and asked if the resident had a fever. The RP was told that the resident was agitated therefore the RP went to the facility to check on the resident. The RP asked the caregiver to take the resident's temperature using a digital thermometer. According to the RP the caregiver did not know how to operate the thermometer therefore requiring the RP to take the resident's temperature. The resident was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with

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.

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

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

hospital, which shows that there was clearly a lack of quality care being provided and that there was something that was

Reporting party (RP) stated that he has been residing at this facility for the past 5 days. RP stated that he fills out a food request form for the next day, but he is not served anything that he has requested. RP stated that he is a diabetic and he is vegetarian. RP stated that he requested a meatless chef salad with eggs and a grilled cheese sandwich for dinner. RP was served lettuce and cantaloupe for dinner. When RP asked the server (unknown, Asian woman) what happened to his meal, the server told him that if he does not like it he can leave. RP stated that this is the answer for all of his complaints. RP stated that other residents enter his room and go through his drawers at night. RP stated that he had some nuts on top of his dresser

The ombudsman will work with the resident to resolve their problem. Their complaint will be kept confidential unless they give the ombudsman permission to use their name. They can also contact the Office of Health Care Quality, Spring Grove Hospital Center, Bland Bryant Building, 55 Wade Avenue, Catonsville, MD 21228, 410- 402-8201. There is a complaint form that an individual or family member can fill out if they have concerns about the health care or treatment that they or a family member received or did not receive. It is sponsored by Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Office of Health Care Quality. This form can be sent to the above Catonsville address. Once forms are received, immediate action is taken to investigate the complaint. Findings are made public on a database if the complaint was found to have

records for allegedly failing to provide appropriate care to the patient, after he fell in his room

All complains has to be reported to senior staff and recorded in care plan of resident. If any complain is related to abuse

If testing results support the suspicions of impairment, then management is mandated to report the incident to the North Carolina Board of Nursing (NCBON, 2011). With increased medication errors, Beverly failed to provide a safe and effective nursing care to the patient, therefore violating the laws of the Nurse Practice Act (NCBON, 2009).

Anna is a fifty five year old homeless, unemployed woman who was admitted to the Emergency Room (ER) at Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario for pelvic pain and postmenopausal bleeding. During the nurse’s head-to-toe assessment it was found that the patient also had presenting abdominal distention, prompting her physician to order an X-Ray to determine if a gastrointestinal issue caused this distention. Once this was ruled out, Anna’s physicians continued to search for the underlying cause of her abdominal distention, in addition to her other admitting symptoms. As a result, Anna was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient on the Acute Medicine Unit. The day following admission, Anna went for further testing to hopefully discover the cause of her symptoms. The first test completed was an

Joanna is an experienced nurse taking care of Mrs. Kelly, who was Joanna’s patient many times in the past for her primary problem which is COPD. This time Mrs. Kelly was admitted with complaints of abdominal pain what was different from her primary diagnoses. Her vital signs were with normal limits and no significant changes from privies results, but for the nurse she looks sick, and Joanna know that something is wrong. She calls the resident doctor, but he tell her to watches and calls back with series changes. Joanna multiple attempts to report that something needs to be done to evaluate the cause of Mrs. Kelly pain was ask to calm down. However nobody took patient symptoms series and the next day patient died.