Finally got malpractice insurance.

[quazar]

I have hemmed and hawed for years, and with each passing year in practice, gotten more and more anxious about NOT having malpractice insurance. I had always been told "nurses who carry personal insurance are sued first," but then I had also been told that the hospital will only cover you if you followed hospital policy down to the exact letter (and we all know human error is a real thing) and will throw you under the bus the first chance they get.

I have watched coworkers go through awful lawsuits, and have had experiences at work that increasingly leave me praying at the bedside that everything turns out okay and that I don't end up in court. My line of work is just plain scary sometimes (OB). Patients are getting sicker, and pregnancies are getting more and more high risk with more and more co-morbidities that make for sometimes frightening situations at the bedside.

I have been reading through threads on this site for a few weeks trying to decide, and I finally decided that enough is enough, and that my peace of mind is worth $109 a year. I feel like a weight has been lifted. I just had to share.

[rymes]

I have always been told that if I bought my own malpractice insurance it would be used against me, as in, they would go after me personally because of the insurance. I have always felt very comfortable in my 30 years + of nursing being covered by the hospitals I work in insurance coverage. We are human & we do make mistakes, but that is the reason they cover you.

[2mint]

A quick reality orientation from Nursing Fundamentals (Kozier):

"The nurse employed by a hospital functions within an

employer–employee relationship in which the nurse represents

and acts for the hospital and therefore must function within the

policies of the employing agency. This type of legal relation-

ship creates the ancient legal doctrine known as respondeat

superior ("let the master answer"). In other words, the master

(employer) assumes responsibility for the conduct of the ser-

vant (employee) and can also be held responsible for malprac-

tice by the employee. By virtue of the employee role, therefore,

the nurse's conduct is the hospital's responsibility.

This doctrine does not imply that the nurse cannot be held

liable as an individual. Nor does it imply that the doctrine will

prevail if the employee's actions are extraordinarily inappro-

priate, that is, beyond those expected or foreseen by the em-

ployer. For example, if the nurse hits a client in the face, the

employer could disclaim responsibility because this behavior

is beyond the bounds of expected behavior. Criminal acts, such

as assisting with criminal abortions or taking tranquilizers

from a client's supply for personal use, would also be consid-

ered extraordinarily inappropriate behavior. Nurses can be held

liable for failure to act as well. For example, a nurse who sees

another nurse consistently performing in an incompetent manner

and fails to do anything to protect the client may be considered negligent.

....

Several legal doctrines or principles are related to negli-

gence. One such doctrine is respondeat superior. A lawsuit for

a negligent act performed by a nurse will also name the nurse's

employer. In addition, employers may be held liable for negli-

gence if they fail to provide adequate human and material resources

for nursing care, fail to properly educate nurses on the use of new

equipment or procedures, or fail to orient nurses to the facility."

I'm in the ER; I don't deviate from policies&procedures; I don't have a malpractice insurance.