Case Study #2: Alleged improper admission orders resulting in morphine overdose and death There were multiple co-defendants in this claim who are not discussed in this scenario. Monetary amounts represent only the payments made on behalf of the nurse pr


Case Study #2:  Alleged inappropriate arrival indication resulting in morphine balancedose and dissolution

 

There were multiple co-defendants in this right who are not discussed in this scenario. Monetary totals dramatize singly the payments made on interest of the nurture practitioner. Any totals compensated on interest of the co-defendants are not conducive. While there may feel been errors/negligent acts on the part of other accuseds, the predicament, comments, and recommendations are poor to the actions of the accused; the nurture practitioner.

 

The decedent unrepining (plaintiff) was a 72 year old dame who had been receiving hospital caution for intelligent end asceticism resulting from a drop. Her departed narrative interposed constant asceticism skillful-treatment and end-stage renal malady for which she common hemodialysis. She was to be epidemic to the co-accused nursing pliancy for reconditioning and material therapy previous to subordinate to her dregs.

 

The nurture practitioner (defendant) was on-call at the period of the unrepining’s transport, and the nursing pliancy contacted her and decipher the indication to the accused nurture practitioner balance the telephone. The accused nurture practitioner questioned the closeness of two morphine indication for opposed dosages behind a while twain dosages administered twice daily. She instructed the nurture to disencumber the emend morphine dosage behind a while the transportring hospital’s pharmacist and to promote the unrepining singly behind the pharmacist separated and common the morphine indication. The accused nurture practitioner had no prefer message behind a while the pliancy and no other involvement in the unrepining’s caution. The pliancy nurture telephoned the hospital pharmacist who common twain morphine indication, and the unrepining was promoteted to the nursing pliancy.

 

During the primary slumbering and generous day of her nursing pliancy remain, documentation inspired the unrepining to be ready and oriented. On the cooperate day, she was base by nursing staff behind a whileout indispensable signs. Despite contiguous chest compressions and EMS joined action measures, the unrepining was pronounced unconscious. The autopsy results listed the agent of dissolution as morphine venom. Surprisingly, the unrepining as-well had an wealthy race alcohol roll (correspondent to drinking three to filthy alcoholic beverages). Beagent the fount of the alcohol could not be identified, the medical examiner was unqualified to administration out surroundings, suicide or homicide and classified the habit of dissolution as hesitating.

 

Resolution

Defense experts presented affirmation that the nurture practitioner’s actions to be behind a whilein the criterion of caution.

 

Defense experts affirmation was that the unrepining’s definite morphine race rolls, well-balanced regarding her renal malady, could not feel resulted from the total of morphine ordered, administered and chronicled in the unrepining’s bloom counsel produceings. The wealthy morphine and alcohol rolls led experts to the estimation that the unrepining may feel ingested morphine and alcohol from a fount other than the nursing pliancy.

 

Plaintiffs did not confer-upon any experts to confute justification experts.

 

A excitement for inequitable resume determination for the accused nurture practitioner was denied by the flatter and the conclusion was made to produce to proof. Behind the example of affirmation but previous to receiving the sentence the co-defendants fixed the predicament out of flatter behind a while no individual jurisdiction attributed to the accused nurture practitioner.

 

Discussion

1.     Summarize the predicament and the outcome of the predicament.

2.     Based on your review; What does Resume Determination average? Do you consort behind a while the flatter’s conclusion on the Resume Judgment? Why?

3.     Do you consort behind a while the out of flatter dregs and no jurisdiction to Nurture Practitioner? Defend/discuss your retort.

4.     What practice-related allowable and/or holy results were breached and by whom? What other accuseds [personnel] may be lawful? How?

5.     Identify a destroy skillful-treatment action plan to frustrate this result(s) from reoccurring.