ICU Nurse Fired For Refusing 3rd Patient

Nurse Julie Griffin was fired for standing up for what she thought was the right thing. Nurses General Nursing News

At Westside Regional Medical Center in Plantation, Florida, ICU nurse Julie Griffin worked in the 12 bed cardiovascular ICU (CVICU.) Until she was fired for refusing to take a third patient.

Westside Regional Medical Center is part of HCA Healthcare. HCA Healthcare is the largest for-profit hospital chain in the U.S., owning over 150 hospitals, and earning over 47 billion in 2018.

Unmonitored Patients

One of Julie's concerns for patient safety was that the in-room monitors provided for a split screen display. This allows for an ICU nurse to be in one of her patient's rooms, set the monitor for a 2-view display, and be able to monitor her second patient. The problem? It does not allow for a 3-way display. If the ICU nurse has 3 patients, one of those patients will not be monitored.

In an interview with Hospital Watchdog, Julie Griffin explained that there is a standing order for all ICU patients to receive continuous monitoring, and nurses must electronically attest to the fact that the standard of care was met. HCA CVICU does not staff a qualified monitor tech at the nurses station where the central bank of patient monitors display. If all the nurses are away from the station providing patient care and an unmonitored patient goes into a lethal rhythm, there is no one to see it. An alarm would sound, but there are constant alarms in CVICU that compete for a nurse's attention. Alarms cannot be relied upon as a substitute for a nurse.

Hospital Watchdog reports that 2 such unmonitored patients have died. Allegedly, one of the patients was discovered dead and may have been dead for up to 30 minutes. A family member went out to the nurses station to report that something was wrong.

In the other case, allegedly the nurse was assigned 3 patients, was able to monitor only 2 of them, and the 3rd patient died of pulmonary problems, possible a pulmonary embolism (PE).

Hospital Watchdog qualifies the above cases saying they are not substantiated with medical records or other documentation, they are reported by nurse Julie Griffin in an interview.

Whistle-Blower

Julie says all of her colleagues shared her concern about patient safety and lack of monitoring, but they were afraid to speak up. They needed to keep their jobs in order to support their families. Julie, previously in the Navy, believed in following the chain-of-command. She reported unsafe patient conditions to her charge nurses and manager. She believed that if corporate only knew about the practice, they would want to do the right thing and rectify the situation.

Instead of rectifying the situation, nurses were frequently required to take 3, and sometimes 4, patients in the CVICU. Julie claims that untrained nurses were assigned ICU patients.

Julie trusted there would not be retaliation if she complained. There was. Julie claims her Director intimidated her and at one point frightened Julie by getting physically close. Julie's schedule was changed to working every weekend. She felt harassed.

Even the HR department at Westside acknowledged that the Director's actions were inappropriate. Even so, Julie was removed from duty within hours the day she refused to take a third patient.

On the day she was terminated, Julie had 2 patients. One patient had orders for transfer out to the floor. One of the patients was a post-op open heart surgery, and was on a diuretic. Julie knew that a patient on a diuretic often has to urinate urgently, and was concerned that she needed to respond right away to make sure he didn't fall.

Julie refused to accept the assignment of a 3rd patient. At 1700, The CVICU Director came to the unit and told Julie she had to take the 3rd patient. She again refused, was placed on investigative leave, and terminated 2 weeks later, in 2017. Julie had worked in HCA ICU since July 2016.

Julie later filed 2 Florida Whistle-Blower complaints in 2018, and has filed a suit against HCA for unlawful termination.

Julie's Director says that Julie was a disruptive staff member.

Julie says that the standard of care required by HCA called for continuous monitoring of her patients, and she was unwilling to violate that standard.

Right or Wrong?

Should Julie have gone with the status quo and quietly accepted a 3rd patient, knowing that at least 1 of her patients was lower acuity? Or did she do the right thing?

Is her reputation so damaged that she will have difficulty securing employment? Was she acting on principle or imminent patient endangerment?

Does she have any chance of prevailing against HCA?

Many of us have been in similar situations. What would you have done?

Nurse Beth,

Author, "Your Last Nursing Class: How to Land Your First Nursing Job"...and your next!

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.
21 hours ago, Nurse Beth said:
Should Julie have gone with the status quo and quietly accepted a 3rd patient, knowing that at least 1 of her patients was lower acuity? Or did she do the right thing?

False dichotomy

17 hours ago, NotANewRN said:

So 1 patient was a floor patient and the other was a post-op patient that was continent and could request to go the bathroom. Neither of those patients are ICU patients. She refused a 3rd? Why? Her assignment is a floor patient with transfer orders, a step-down patient and a potentially true ICU patient.

15 hours ago, NotANewRN said:

The Heart was ambulatory and her concern was that she was a fall risk. That is a legit concern but that is not an ICU patient. After fully reading everything, I am very convinced she was not caring for even 1 ICU patient and refused the patient that may have been a real ICU patient.

14 hours ago, NotANewRN said:

I did re-read. I read the whole case and all her responses. To answer your questions: Transport would transfer the patient because he had floor orders therefore he is a floor patient being held in the ICU. The Heart on a diuretic was a fall risk, ok. What patient in a cardiac area is not on a diuretic?

1. Simple: They must have a unit policy that says patients waiting for a step-down bed are not subject to the direct cardiac monitoring and other ICU-specific policies, and they must have a routine process in place for getting them on tele instead. Then they need to get them out of there within X (short, defined) time frame so that those down-graded patients don't end up being an after-thought tacked onto an assignment where literally everything else is a higher priority than they are.

2. The statements in the OP make it sound as if their policy is that everybody gets direct cardiac monitoring because ICU. This is directly why I went off on my original tangent about having it both ways: They hold this patient in an ICU bed and by policy continue to demand of the ICU RNs certain interventions such as direct cardiac monitoring that are only expected with ICU-level care, but also want to be able to turn around and say "but s/he isn't really an ICU patient, so you can take another one." So how does that look when the nurse doesn't directly monitor the patient?

Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.
2 hours ago, NotANewRN said:

It wasn't triple ICU patients. A floor patient with transfer orders. He doesn't get continuous monitoring.

I don't think the actual acuity of the patient matters that much. The fact is, this is the ICU. It's reasonable to expect ICU patients to be legit ICU patients. If you allow them to add a third patient, even a walky-talky, it's still a third patient. That sets a bad precedent. It's going to morph into "normal" for ICU nurses to take 3 patients, even when they're legit ICU patients. And 3:1 is not a legit ICU ratio.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Don't make this about Julie not wanting the extra work. Someone has to stand up for patient safety when the straws keep getting added to the camel's back.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
24 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

The statements in the OP make it sound as if their policy is that everybody gets direct cardiac monitoring because ICU. This is directly why I went off on my original tangent about having it both ways: They hold this patient in an ICU bed and by policy continue to demand of the ICU RNs certain interventions such as direct cardiac monitoring that are only expected with ICU-level care, but also want to be able to turn around and say "but s/he isn't really an ICU patient, so you can take another one." So how does that look when the nurse doesn't directly monitor the patient?

I don't work for HCA (thank God!) but any patient with telemetry orders are monitored directly ICU or not. The difference is in the ICU, the assigned nurse is tasked with looking at their patient's monitor and in the event they can't do that, they ask a fellow nurse or the charge nurse to momentarily watch their patients for them while their eyes (or attention) are directed at something else. In the step down and tele units, there are staff (nurses in many cases) who sit in front of the monitors in various shifts 24/7.

I think the situation that the nurse was faced with is that she could only split her monitor to 2 patients at a time (as is usually the case) and could not watch the monitor for the third patient. Another poster said that what they usually do in these cases was to hook the non-ICU patient (one with transfer order) to the floor telemetry system so that they can be watched remotely that way. I don't know if this was explored at that hospital.

Having said that, I work in California where we have mandated ICU staffing ratios which are either 2:1, 1:1, or 1:2 no exceptions...an ICU nurse can have 2 "stable" patients waiting for a floor bed.

Specializes in Hospice Home Care and Inpatient.

Being in healthcare for as long I have whatever observation level a patient is physically on and what the real needs are are a matter of semantics. Perhaps I am over simplifying, but any pt who is in ICU is there for a reason. Is this not why there are doctors who justify this level of care? Dosen't a doc have to give an order to transfer to lower level of care?

6 hours ago, juan de la cruz said:

Another poster said that what they usually do in these cases was to hook the non-ICU patient (one with transfer order) to the floor telemetry system so that they can be watched remotely that way. I don't know if this was explored at that hospital.

I understand...the point I am making is that part of her concern beyond patient safety itself appears to be the things they were expected to do and document vs. the feasibility of actually doing those things. It sounds as though throwing someone on tele would not have been in line with her idea of the care she was expected, by policy, to provide and document.

12 hours ago, juan de la cruz said:

Fair enough, but that didn't stop that hospital from finding her replacement. Did that change anything?

It changed something! It changed a nurse from accepting the status quo and deciding she wasn’t going to just conform anymore. Then... her courage inspired another nurse to do the same and then her courage will inspire another nurse to do the same... and then....... we aren’t just a profession that takes it.. we begin to become a profession that is doing something about it.

Again

i applaud her courage!

6 hours ago, MSO4foru said:

Being in healthcare for as long I have whatever observation level a patient is physically on and what the real needs are are a matter of semantics. Perhaps I am over simplifying, but any pt who is in ICU is there for a reason. Is this not why there are doctors who justify this level of care? Dosen't a doc have to give an order to transfer to lower level of care?

Yes ma’am and amen!

12 hours ago, TriciaJ said:

I don't think the actual acuity of the patient matters that much. The fact is, this is the ICU. It's reasonable to expect ICU patients to be legit ICU patients. If you allow them to add a third patient, even a walky-talky, it's still a third patient. That sets a bad precedent. It's going to morph into "normal" for ICU nurses to take 3 patients, even when they're legit ICU patients. And 3:1 is not a legit ICU ratio.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Don't make this about Julie not wanting the extra work. Someone has to stand up for patient safety when the straws keep getting added to the camel's back.

You are absolutely correct.

Also, the downgrade patient DID require monitoring. It’s a CVICU and the court documents line out how the down grades DID require monitoring. They had orders to be monitored and the hospital didn’t have the capability and didn’t provide a means to do so.

Also, the court documents show HCA billed CMS at an ICU level of care 1:2 when the nurses had 3. Assignment sheets were provided to the judge showing this.

Nurses are forgetting the basic premise... it is doing the right thing. Ethical thing. Just because we don’t HAVE TO work at a crappy hospital does not mean we won’t or our loved ones won’t wind up in an unsafe hospital. Hospitals receive emergencies. A patient cannot choose where to have an emergency

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
6 hours ago, JKL33 said:

I understand...the point I am making is that part of her concern beyond patient safety itself appears to be the things they were expected to do and document vs. the feasibility of actually doing those things. It sounds as though throwing someone on tele would not have been in line with her idea of the care she was expected, by policy, to provide and document.

I respect your opinion here and in other posts. I see your point. But I also feel that a lot of what is going on is conjecture. As a provider, when I write continuous cardiac monitoring on a patient, it doesn't matter what the location of the patient is -- it's just a billable order that the hospital can charge the patient for. That's why as a provider, you have to justify the order with an indication (i.e., risk for arrhythmia, electrolyte imbalance, etc.).

That order applies to ICU or tele and doesn't matter whether an ICU nurse does it or not. Of course, I don't know that HCA policy is. But could it be that the nurse was misinterpreting the order as she must be the only one watching the monitor? There were cases in the same ICU where 2 people died because they were "not being monitored" but then the circumstances weren't clearly stated - hard to make a judgement on those. Sorry, I'm too pragmatic.