[NRSKarenRN]

see DC Nurse DC Nurse - Volume 1, Number 1 Nov 2007
http://newsroom.dc.gov/list.aspx/age.../2007/month/11

Practice or behavioral issues of concern

to the Board are those issues that can

impact the safety and welfare of patients.
Issues of clinical incompetence, patient
abuse, substance abuse and diversion and
performance of acts outside of one’s legal
scope of practice are examples of practice

and behavioral concerns

Nurse Staffing Agencies

New regulations for Nurse Staffing
Agencies which operate in the District go
into effect on January 31, 2008. Staffing
agencies will be required to inform
the Board of Nursing when an agency
Nurse has been fired from a temporary

assignment for practice issues.

Health Care Facilities

Currently, D.C. regulations for hospitals

require that administrators inform us when
a nurse is dismissed for practice
issues. Many administrators are unaware
of this requirement and therefore, this
information is often not provided to the
public or the Board of Nursing. This lack of
information and inactivity does not serve
the best interest of the citizens of the

District of Columbia

[herring_RN]

Of course it is good to stop the few unsafe nurses from harming a patient.
We have had a nurse take controlled substances. She was terminated and was hired wlsewhere.

A registry RN charted for the entire 12 hour shift four hours into the shift. Vital signs and everything. He had the I&O totalled eight hours befor the shift was to end. When I showed the supervisor he was made a "do not send" but she told me she wouldn't report him to the board so i did.
BUT I hope this prevents the hospitals claiming unsafe care when they just don't like a nurse.
Even when nurses prevail before the board it is a stressful heart wrenching ordeal. Imagine your entire identity as a nurse on trial.

I know a nurse who eight years after winning told us of her ordeal after a manager reported her to the board for something that did not happen. She sufferred for three years of waiting, paying a lawyer, and worry. It harmed her husband and kids too. She was vindicated when there was no evidence at all. No innocent nurse should have to go through that.
So I hope this requirement makes employers think before using a bogus excuse to terminate someone.

It IS important to protect the public. Is there a provision to deter frivolous reports?

[Angie O'Plasty, RN]

Originally Posted by herring_RN

BUT I hope this prevents the hospitals claiming unsafe care when they just don't like a nurse.
Even when nurses prevail before the board it is a stressful heart wrenching ordeal. Imagine your entire identity as a nurse on trial.

I know a nurse who eight years after winning told us of her ordeal after a manager reported her to the board for something that did not happen. She sufferred for three years of waiting, paying a lawyer, and worry. It harmed her husband and kids too. She was vindicated when there was no evidence at all. No innocent nurse should have to go through that.
So I hope this requirement makes employers think before using a bogus excuse to terminate someone.

It IS important to protect the public. Is there a provision to deter frivolous reports?

I've seen this happen way more often than I care to, and it's absolutely chilling to think that someone can have that much power over your life and your career.

Now what happens to the potential whistleblower? I shudder to think.

[RN1989]

There just does not seem to be a happy medium in this area. Politics and big bucks is allowed to play into hiring, firing, licensure, and reporting so you never know if you are safe or not. I've seen quite a few incompetent nurses that were allowed to keep their license and some fabulous nurses that lost theirs due to vendettas. In this country, if you have money you are ok, if not........oh well.

[herring_RN]

Even malpractice insurance is no guarantee. I am glad to have it.
But my polich states I may have to accept a settlement rather than go to court.
Even if I have done no wrong.

And I might hire my own if I had to go before the board. It depends on the attitude and familiarity of the attorney with my states practice act.

[oramar]

on the other hand they are going to be swamped with information that they don't have they staff to deal with

[NRSKarenRN]

This is indirrectly related to Charles Cullen case. Both PA and NJ have tightened their laws in this regard too.

[CHATSDALE]

to be honest with you i have seen more nurses allowed to resign and go somewhere else than i have seen nurses reported either with or without cause
i can see though how much distress this can cause an innocent nurse because a family decided it would be happier with a big settlement

[oramar]

Originally Posted by herring_RN

So I hope this requirement makes employers think before using a bogus excuse to terminate someone.

It IS important to protect the public. Is there a provision to deter frivolous reports?

I doubt if there is any such provision. BONs think only of the public not of nurses. I don't see how this will decrease vindictive terminations and vindictive reports. I repeat, the BON does not realize it has bitten off more than it can chew. I think they need to be even more specific. I read in a recent BON news letter that our PA BON is absolutely swamped with diversion cases. It is already more than they can handle. How in the world are they going to manage all this other stuff like all the times nurses are terminated because they complain about staffing and stuff like that. In many of those cases charges are trumped up against the nurse because management just wants them OUT.

[elkpark]

I've worked in state government and regulation, and I guarantee you that state and Federal legislatures and regulatory bodies are always reactive, not proactive. This rule was only instituted as a response to an identified, existing problem, and the problem has probably gotten pretty darned serious in order for them to be creating more work for themselves.

C'mon, if we're honest we all know (or have known in the past) of "problem" nurses who have continued to practice for years because hospitals/employers have just fired them and allowed them to move on to another employer rather than suck it up, do the right thing, and turn them in. It's always been easier and safer for the employers (but not the public!) to just turn a blind eye and keep quiet, and let the dangerous nurse become "someone else's problem."

I think this will make things better for good, safe nurses, because it will make it harder for an employer to "trump up" charges to fire someone. Any firing for safety/practice issues (and the article spells out the categories included in that description) will have to be reported to the BON, and the BON will investigate. So, if a hospital wants to get rid of someone and says it's because of safety issues or poor practice (not because the person complained too much about staffing levels, etc.!), they will be part of the investigation and will have to be able to show the BON the documentation of the nurse's unsafe practice. The result of this rule will be that hospitals/employers in DC will not be able to throw around allegations about nurses without having to back them up -- I think that's a good thing!