Originally Posted by tnnurse
Hmmm...this is actually very eye opening. I mean that is usually the whole premise of litigation. That the nurse/ MD etc violated a standard of care or the hospitals policy thus the injury occurred. I cant help but wonder HOW successful the hospitals are at arguing this?BC ...at the end of the day is the hospital hadnt employed that nurse/MD then the pt wouldnt have been exposed to the injury in the first place. So...out of curiousity.....how successful has this legal tactic been?
I don't have any statistics about the outcome of cases, but I can explain to you rationale the hospital uses -- when they first hired the nurse, they verified her/his licensure, checked her/his background to make sure there were no problems or concerns in the nurse's past practice, they put the nurse through an orientation program to verify that s/he was competent and introduce the nurse to how the hospital wants things done, and they provided a policy/procedure manual that spells out in detail exactly how they want the nurse to carry out each and every procedure performed in the course of the nurse's duties. They have done everything they could do to ensure that the nurse would be safe and competent to practice in their facility, short of assigning someone to follow her/him around all day, every day, and watch her/him at work, so how can they be blamed if the individual nurse suddenly decided one day to do something weird and dangerous? They've done everything they could reasonably do to ensure that that was unlikely to happen, and there is
no way they could have forseen or prevented the nurse's action in this incident.
You've got to admit, that's a pretty compelling argument -- what else
could the hospital have done? Also, keep in mind that, in civil suits, the standards are
not "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- each plaintiff involved gets a chance to try to prove that the injury, whatever it was,
wasn't its/her/his fault, and the standard the jury uses to arrive at a decision is "a preponderance of the evidence" (that is, >50% ...)
Again, I don't mean anything
negative about employers when I say that, no matter how many times you're told "we're all family here," or whatever saccharine and meaningless cliché a facility chooses to use,
your employer is not your friend. It's your
employer -- that's just reality. If you trust your employer to protect your interests and professional future, you're in for disappointment, small or large, at some point in your career. Small disappointment is disappointing.
Big disappointment might ruin your career and your future ...
Nursing News