Content That JustBeachyNurse Likes

JustBeachyNurse 94,666 Views

Joined: Aug 5, '10; Posts: 37,590 (21% Liked) ; Likes: 22,777

Sorted By Last Like Given (Max 500)
  • May 20

    Quote from EllaBella1

    On a second note, I googled the situation and in the article that I found there are a few glaring statements that make me question a significant portion of this story. First and foremost, the family states that the organs were "going to be donated to 5 children in need." There is NO way that the family knew this. NO WAY. The family would have no clue who organs were going to (think HIPAA people). No clue about the number of people, their ages, etc. Not to mention the recipients themselves often do not know for sure that they're getting an organ until the day of surgery. The process of matching people to organs takes SO much time and so many tests. Bloodwork, tissue typing, multiple CT scans and MRIs, ultrasounds, echos, biopsies, bronchs, xrays, etc etc etc. It's not just a "these 5 kids need organs" type of thing.

    Plus the article calls him brain dead multiple times but then states that he was still undergoing brain tests, etc. You're not brain dead until you're legally pronounced brain dead by two providers. So there's that.
    Emphasis is mine. As soon as I saw that, I knew there was something very fishy with this story. If the patient was "undergoing brain tests," then he could not be declared brain dead; no doctor is going to tell a family their son is brain dead if they haven't even finished testing him. There are LEGAL criteria that must be met for that diagnosis, and in many cases they go even further than what is legally required (cerebral perfusion scans, etc.) to make sure.

    This story stinks to high heaven...

  • May 20

    I read another article on this. It was pretty specific in that it said that the child had not yet been declared brain dead and that the final test would be done the next day prior to removal of life support. So.... not brain dead.. not a miracle.. just science.

  • May 20

    I'm staying an organ donor. Most of these stories are full of lies, misunderstandings, and lack of basic medical understanding.

    Do I need to bring on the Jahi McMath story? I haven't heard much about that story lately. I haven't seen and new videos of her communicating, moving on her own, or any other substantial functioning actions. Anther example of there are worse things than dying or almost dying and becoming an organ donor.
    I'll take being gone from this Earth vs laying in a bed, completely dependent on machines, for the remainder of my days.

  • May 20

    Yes, I do trust the process... Having both professional and personal experience in this area, there's really nothing to hide, and really the most drama comes from posts and stories like this that are rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories. With the small handful of sensationalized stories like this, either two things happen. They were never actually declared brain dead (like this article), or the brain death declaration was done in error as there was some confounding factor that mimicked brain death (hypothermia, drug intoxication, alcohol intoxication, hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, inexperienced clinician declaring, etc). This does not mean that the person "recovered" from brain death. It means that they were never brain dead in the first place. The majority of these erroneous declarations occur as a result of drug/alcohol intoxication, hypothermia, and hypotension.

    There has not been a single documented case in the entire world where someone was properly and accurately declared brain dead who recovered. if there was, it would be in every medical journal, and on every single news outlet for weeks...

    Like anything else in life, when someone, or a large portion of the population doesn't know about how something works, it opens up a huge opportunity for conspiracy theories to develop, and not only are healthcare personnel not immune to this phenomenon, it's happening in this very thread. It's much easier to assume that something shady is happening when you don't know how something works.

    If you don't believe me, get in touch with your local donation agency, or talk to them when they're on your unit next. There's nothing to hide about any part of the process, and I'm sure they would be more than willing to let you observe. The only thing that you might not be able to observe is when they are looking for recipients due to privacy concerns.

    And to the poster that finds the initial order set to be "tedious", there are certain and very specific things that are needed to both evaluate organ function, and others that have been proven in studies to have better outcomes in recipients. At the point where organ donation is being performed, the focus shifts from trying to save the donor, to having the best outcome for the recipients and donor family. Admittedly, there are many things that the OPO will ask you to do with a donor patient, but just because you don't know the value of it, doesn't mean that anything nefarious is happening.

  • May 20

    The article is the mother's perception of events. Medical staff were not interviewed, making it a biased report. Also, it states that the boy was scheduled the next day for the final brain wave testing to indicate brain death; this test was cancelled after he began to wake up.

    The physicians in this case were wrong when they said he would have no meaningful recovery. In this situation I would rather be told to prepare for the worst and have the best as the actual outcome, rather than be told everything will be great when in the cases of so many TBIs there isn't meaningful recovery.

    OPOs are brought in fairly early to evaluate potential donors, however they can NOT just take organs without consent, which some responses are making me feel some here believe.

    I have cared for many donor patients, and have even gotten to go into the OR for the organ recovery process. I consider it a great honor to see this patient through the process, I treat them the same as any other patient, even talking to my brain dead patients.

    I also have witnessed the amazing gift that organ donation is to those in need. Truly life changing.

    I am a donor, and I would make that decision for any of my family members if the situation arose.

  • May 20

    "Man Agrees To Donate Organs, Then Works a 12 Hour Nursing Shift."
    Yup, just signed my organ donor card, now I am heading to work.

    I am not sure I understand the story.

    It looks like:

    A family discussed withdrawl of life support in a critically ill patient, pending further testing and evaluation.
    The patient had a poor prognosis, and the family discussed organ donation. Had the child died, this might have saved other children.
    Despite expectations, the patient recovered.

    At that point, they decided not to harvest any organs, as the patient would still be using them. Ideally for quite some time.

    What am I missing?

  • May 20

    I've dealt with dozens of patients whose families could tell pretty much word by word the very same story sans organ donation part. The truth was that most of those patients had severe residual functional defects. The best outcome was part independent ADLs on multiple anti-seizure and other meds, and a few were on that prolonged torture otherwise known as "chronic life support" with GCS 7+/- 2. Yet, the families were sure that they were doing "just great" and were "on their way to full recovery" and attempted to enroll one of them in full time university undergrad course, among other things. So, I tend not to believe miraculous stories from elated family members who see and hear strictly what they want to see and hear.

    I am an organ donor and DNR if over 96 hours on vent under any circumstances. I saw too much in my life and would prefer eternal rest (and potentially saving someone on my way there) over what it REALLY means to be "recovering from anoxic brain injury" of even moderate degree.

    BTW, for those who are afraid to be given second-line care as potential donors: transplant surgeons are known, among other things, as people insanely obsessed with, that is to say, "quality of material" they work with. These surgeries and their results mean too much for them, even if they can forget (and they never can) about legal risks which will fall heavily on them in case of bad outcome. Transplant centers are closely watched for their outcomes as well and compete with each other to death because, although by themselves transplants do not bring much $$ (as most patients are on Medicare/Medicaid and the costs are tremendous), but associated research, teaching and status changes bring royal $$$$$ and Pharma and professional association's people can pick and choose the best. Therefore, there are too many folks who are VERY interested in the highest possible quality of care for patients who look like potential donors, and these people are on the level to have what they want to get done. I tell that as one who worked in transplant research for a while and saw it all from provider's side.

  • May 20

    Quote from Emergent
    They were planning on pulling the plug the next day, so I presume they had determined his eligibility.
    I didn't read anything that suggested he was brain dead or had been declared so. I did read that he had a brain injury and that his prognosis was not good. You can "sign papers" to be an organ donor at any point.
    His family do not appear to be medical professionals and are fundraising on top of that. A sensational story gets press and press brings in donations. I also believe they may be "filling in the blanks" where their understanding is lacking.
    To answer your question, I do still believe in the process and I am an organ donor myself.

  • May 20

    Why is your license on the line? CNAs do not work under your license. Nobody works under your license but you.

  • May 20

    I think you should see a lawyer with a view to legal action against this company. Also, write down every single thing as you remember it happening so you don't forget details. I would also immediately look for a new job. You should also fill in an incident form for this event.

  • May 20

    To begin with...

    1). Someone below age 18/21 got YOUR gun? You have to surrender every single one of your guns and never can buy them again.
    2). As above + someone got killed? You go to jail.
    3). You got to register to own a gun, get license, pass exam, pay yearly tax, demonstrate ownership of a working safe programmed by your fingerprint. Just pretty much like you do with your driving license.
    4). No one in household of a person with known history of certain felonies (like aggravated assault) and mental health disorders (known anger outbursts within last 5 years with h/o harm to others or involuntary confinement) can store a gun. If they still want to shoot, they can own one but must belong to some sort of organization like hunting club and store it there.
    5). Only organized sales with centralized background check. No more gun shows.
    6). PMHNP/Pediatrics in EVERY school. Double the number of high school counselors, force them to have at least 6 months education specifically in children's mental health issues.
    7). No military- grade guns for public (or whatever the stuff is named). The existing ones are bought out by State within 10 years. Having them after that = felony, with all the sequela.
    8). "Want to help America? Stop a bully, whenever you see one! Back to manners, USA!"(yup, including reporting to police that guy on Facebook who just said that Hitler was the greatest man ever and all immigrants are pigs).
    9). Make mental health, and especially holistic mental health management, a priority over heart disease in management and prevention. Force employers to provide FMLA for that and insurers pay for medical stress management, gyms and community health activities.
    10). EVERY school district gets a community center for teens, led by teens (ours has one, and it does splendid job. "Girls only/boys only" nights, pool parties, shopping crazies, tutoring, games, summer camps, book clubs. But we're in district which doesn't know how else to spend money it gets).

    Sounds like something that makes sense?

  • May 20

    Quote from ReifRN
    How sad that someone would intentionally do that to you. I'm very sorry. Glad you got your attorney involved!
    The nursing world is SMALL. I've been a nurse for 11 years. In my current job, I have patients that I have known in some way or another from each of my last 3 jobs. I have only 28 patients- 1 who I remember taking care of back when I worked in the hospital, MANY who are on service with the nursing agency I used to work for and several who are on service with my last company for either infusion or enteral services.

    You specifically named the hospital/location. The manager who informally offered you the position only to have HR block it could be on this site. You generally want to stay as anonymous as possible on here.

  • May 20

    Quote from ReifRN
    How so? It's what happened ������*♀️
    Because hospitals don't like to be talked about on social media. Because hospitals have people on staff whose JOB it is to scour the internet for any mention of their facility. Because most hospitals are now part of larger health care systems and speaking about one in a negative sense, albeit mildly, may torpedo your chances of getting hired into any of their associate hospitals. Because HR people talk to other HR people. Because nurse managers talk to other nurse managers. Because people have lost jobs over things they have posted on the net. Because you don't know if the involved people are already members of this site and you may have tanked your anonymity such as it is. It matters not if you are just telling the truth if the hospital you are speaking of does not appreciate it. But, hey, if you want to take that risk who am I to try to convince you otherwise? Best wishes on your job search.

  • May 20

    Quote from Penelope_Pitstop
    The LPN should probably be receiving this education from his/her nurse educator, not a home health RN who works for a different organization. That way the LPN would be following his/her organizational protocols. If nothing else, the nurse educator or supervisor who is responsible for said LPN should be privy to any and all education regarding new skills for employees.
    Exactly this. Unless you have a contract to provide formal education this could be a bad situation a brewin'.

  • May 20

    The LPN should probably be receiving this education from his/her nurse educator, not a home health RN who works for a different organization. That way the LPN would be following his/her organizational protocols. If nothing else, the nurse educator or supervisor who is responsible for said LPN should be privy to any and all education regarding new skills for employees.