A 38-year-old corrections officer collapsed at the jail while playing basketball after work. A physician assistant (PA) and a registered nurse (RN), employees of a nearby hospital contracted to provide on-site medical care at the jail, were the first to respond. They connected the defibrillator, determined that the corrections officer was asystolic with perhaps a possible ventricular fibrillation. They detected no electrical activity within the heart and defibrillated, using the lowest setting at 200 joules. They then initiated chest compressions. Paramedics arrived 18 minutes later, immediately starting an intravenous (IV) line and administering epinephrine and then atropine. They continued to provide chest compression and aeration to the patient. The patient could not be successfully resuscitated, however, and subsequently died. His family brought a lawsuit for negligence and wrongful death. The court first accepted the fact that, as paid professional caregivers within the scope of their job duties, Good Samaritan laws did not apply in this case. The issue then became whether the first responders had competently cared for this person and, if they had not cared for this patient competently, whether the patient would have survived. 1. Was defibrillating a patient in asystole an appropriate care intervention for professional caregivers? Was this action within their scope of practice? 2. Should the issue of whether more competent care should have been initially administered a factor in this case? Explain properly, don't just copy from other site, I need proper explanation thus I can understand.

Human Physiology: From Cells to Systems (MindTap Course List)

9th Edition

ISBN:9781285866932

Author:Lauralee Sherwood

Publisher:Lauralee Sherwood

Chapter9: Cardiac Physiology

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 12RE

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Question

A 38-year-old corrections officer collapsed at the jail while playing basketball after work. A physician assistant (PA) and a registered nurse (RN), employees of a nearby hospital contracted to provide on-site medical care at the jail, were the first to respond. They connected the defibrillator, determined that the corrections officer was asystolic with perhaps a possible ventricular fibrillation. They detected no electrical activity within the heart and defibrillated, using the lowest setting at 200 joules. They then initiated chest compressions. Paramedics arrived 18 minutes later, immediately starting an intravenous (IV) line and administering epinephrine and then atropine. They continued to provide chest compression and aeration to the patient. The patient could not be successfully resuscitated, however, and subsequently died. His family brought a lawsuit for negligence and wrongful death. The court first accepted the fact that, as paid professional caregivers within the scope of their job duties, Good Samaritan laws did not apply in this case. The issue then became whether the first responders had competently cared for this person and, if they had not cared for this patient competently, whether the patient would have survived. 1. Was defibrillating a patient in asystole an appropriate care intervention for professional caregivers? Was this action within their scope of practice? 2. Should the issue of whether more competent care should have been initially administered a factor in this case?

Explain properly, don't just copy from other site, I need proper explanation thus I can understand.

Expert Solution