HCMG730 1 answer below »


Case Study #1: Failure to adequately assess and adviser the resigned shaft operatively resulting in the resigned’s death

NOTE: There were multiple co-defendants in this vindication who are discussed in this scenario. While there may possess been errors/negligent acts on the keep-akeep-apart of other accuseds, the contingency, comments, and recommendations are scant to the exercises of the accused; the nurture.

The decedent/accuser was a 67 year old virile who underwent a lawful sum flexure repossession. Following the act, the accuser was treated in the shaft-anesthesia refusals individual where an epidural catheter was inserted for shaftoperative refusal government.

Following one offspring of hypotension which was treated successfully following a while ephedrine, the accuser was discharged to an inresigned medical-surgical refusals nursing individual following a while the epidural in assign. Although the accused nurture customarily worked on the shaft-acute momentous refusals individual, she had been re-assigned to the medical-surgical nursing refusals individual. The accused nurture methodic that she unexpressed her assignment at the duration of the accuser’s admittance to this individual was to prepare inspection of the resigned refusals on the undiminished bottom for that displace.

The accused nurture assessed the accuser upon his admittance to the individual and rest him to be steady. The accused nurture unexpressed that the trodden refusals of the accuser was assigned to a c-accused licensed serviceable nurture (LPN). Closely three hours following arriving on the individual, the accuser was feeble to endure ordered respiratory therapy due to loathing and vomited presently thereafter. According to the accused nurture, closely ten minutes following the offspring of vomiting, the LPN rest the accuser cyanotic and unresponsive and plainly named a regulation.

The accused nurture responded, as did the regulation team, and the accuser was intubated and catching to ICU. This representation of levelts was rejected by the LPN and two other staff on the individual who unexpressed that the accused nurture was legitimate for the trodden refusals of the accuser.

The LPN methodic that it was the accused nurture who rest the accuser to be unresponsive at some sharp-end following the offspring of vomiting and named the regulation herself. The departed duration betwixt the offspring of vomiting and the regulation is besides rejected. The regular diagnosis was anoxic encephalopathy due to the duration that departed antecedently CPR was established. The prognosis was thin and duration foundation was following a whiledrawn. The accuser breathed inconsequently and was catching to hospice refusals where he after expired.

Ordered material signs and checks of the xyphoid arrangement were not instrumented. The deed that the accuser had skilled hypotension in the reanimation capability should possess involuntary level closer study. The offspring of loathing and vomiting should possess resulted in subjoined study and note to the physician.

Resolution

Experts determined that the accused nurture had breached the exemplar of refusals.

Discussion

1. Summarize the contingency and the conclusion.

2. Based on your revisal and summation, do you consort following a while the court’s conclusion? Defend/discuss your reply.

3. What practice-related juridical and/or incorporeal offsprings as they pertain to Health Pains government were breached? How? By whom? Include the nurture as polite as ALL other potential accuseds. DEFEND your reply.

4. Identify, instrument, and illustrate [in point] a miss government exercise contemplation to frustrate this image of offspring(s) from reoccurring. Refer to rubric for notice on what is required for an exercise contemplation.