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 ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.
3 hours ago, JKL33 said:

I think I will have to disagree at least as far as that order is commonly undertaken according to policies for various hospital locations. (?). From the provider perspective it may not matter who does what/where, but as far as what is expected of the RN subject to act according to the policy of their floor/unit, it is a very big deal who does what/where, especially if you are the RN who is supposed to be doing it.

Again, the order isn't the end of the story. But, is possible that she has misunderstood what the policies of that unit expect of her in this type of situation. Perhaps somewhere there is a policy that says patients awaiting a step-down bed do not require ICU RN monitoring/direct monitoring and may be monitored according to the transfer orders (i.e. via tele).

However. It seems that if the matter were that simple and this RN was mistaken about the policies or expectations for care of the patients housed in the ICU, they would have just shown her the applicable policies on any of the previous occasions she brought her concerns to their attention. It seems like they would want to reassure her instead of fighting about this same complaint each time she raises it. Surely they have that policy somewhere which shows that her take on the matter and her concern is incorrect and unfounded.

Yeah, it's unfortunate we don't have the unit policies in the hospital where Julie works at. I have access to our policies and really, most of the language for both ICU and TCU (Transitional Care Unit aka Step-down) just deals with making sure the nurse checks alarm settings as audible, ensures alarm parameters are appropriate for the patient, and that ST segment monitoring is on. After MunoRN's response, I hope everyone is clear that "watching the monitor" does not mean that the assigned nurse must constantly have their eyes looking at the monitor screen. That's impossible to achieve and that's the reason why there are audible alarms. I wasn't aware that some nurses don't understand that.

I'm pretty sure people understand that it doesn't mean that anyone needs to "continuously" monitor such that they must perform nursing procedures without watching what they're doing, or push buttons on pumps without knowing which ones are being pushed, or perhaps walk into a door on their way out of the room (if such an understanding would ever allow them to leave the room in the first, which seems unlikely). ? So I tend to doubt her understanding of it (or anyone's) would have been that literal.

I do believe it's possible people would think that continuous monitoring in an ICU would be expected to involve more direct eyes in rooms and at in-unit central banks, though, rather than traditional telemetry. That's what I thought. I admit that.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.

I guess I should have clarified. ICU patients have more data capability in their monitoring devices over and above the vital signs we typically use such as BP, O2 Sat, and RR. All those parameters are there because they are actually ordered, such as Vital Signs q 1 hr (or more frequently if needed) in addition to continuous cardiac monitoring.

Our TCU monitors only have the real time cardiac rhythm and NIBP. If RR and O2 sats must also be monitored in TCU, that's ordered separately as "continuous pulse oximetry" with an indication why. The other poster alluded to the fact that downgraded patients still in the ICU can be watched on tele where they work. That's a good example of caring wisely and not using expensive resources.

My cousin is a tech at HCA, he said there are 21 beds in his unit and most of the time there is only one Tech . they do not have unit secretaries, & charge nurses do not take patients. They are supposed to roam around and help but they are often found in the break room doing absolutely nothing . one time he was pulled away to sit 4 a patient and the female Tech was crying when he came back. The nurses were insanely busy and short-staffed and could not help her , the nurses were upset and the tech was left to fend for 21 patients by herself. When the director was approached by the female Tech she was told what's the big deal we only took the other Tech away for half the shift... ...

Of course that is 6 hours of trying to fend for yourself with patients and their families and different departments needing things Etc he said the nurses and techs are always crying or upset on his unit. He is looking for another career all together at this point

Specializes in Critical Care.
1 hour ago, JKL33 said:

I'm pretty sure people understand that it doesn't mean that anyone needs to "continuously" monitor such that they must perform nursing procedures without watching what they're doing, or push buttons on pumps without knowing which ones are being pushed, or perhaps walk into a door on their way out of the room (if such an understanding would ever allow them to leave the room in the first, which seems unlikely). ? So I tend to doubt her understanding of it (or anyone's) would have been that literal.

I do believe it's possible people would think that continuous monitoring in an ICU would be expected to involve more direct eyes in rooms and at in-unit central banks, though, rather than traditional telemetry. That's what I thought. I admit that.

I agree it's reasonable to be skeptical that this was her understanding, but by her own description it's why she refused to take the third patient:

Quote

"When I was assigned a third patient there was no continuous monitoring. Consequently, I had no idea if my patient was doing well or poorly. If the patient had an adverse medical event, I wouldn’t know."

When cardiac patients were admitted to the CVICU unit there was a standing order for continuous monitoring for these patients.

However, nurses could only monitor two (2) patients since the nurses’ telemetry screens only provided split-screen data for two patients in each of the patient’s separate rooms.

Frequently, the hospital required nurses to care for three (3) cardiac patients simultaneously. Assigning a third patient created an acute problem. For the third cardiac patient, no continuous monitoring could occur due to the technical limitation of the split-screen that only serves two patients.

11 minutes ago, juan de la cruz said:

The other poster alluded to the fact that downgraded patients still in the ICU can be watched on tele where they work. That's a good example of caring wisely and not using expensive resources.

I can understand that aspect. I'm not sure any of the 3 patients are best served by the overall idea, but ??‍♀️. My observation has been that generally-speaking, professional nurses don't attempt to prove that something isn't right (by imperfect means such as this complaint, or use of compliance lines or other risky undertakings) unless/until it has become overwhelming or seems quite wrong. We don't have big money and big lawyers to explain our concerns and prove that there is a concern.

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

I can understand that aspect. I'm not sure any of the 3 patients are best served by the overall idea, but ??‍♀️. My observation has been that generally-speaking, professional nurses don't attempt to prove that something isn't right (by imperfect means such as this complaint, or use of compliance lines or other risky undertakings) unless/until it has become overwhelming or seems quite wrong. We don't have big money and big lawyers to explain our concerns and prove that there is a concern.

Oh, it's overwhelming how much negative press HCA gets and I'm sure Julie saw it all in the specific HCA hospital she worked for. I agree with many of her grievances such as the constant 1:3 staffing in her ICU and the poorly trained nurses who are caring for open heart patients. Those needed to be looked into. She did not make any of these up because these stories are backed up by other nurses' experience at similar HCA facilities. I hope she wins her unlawful termination lawsuit. I just hoped she had a better way of presenting her case to win it because I'm not convinced she will.

6 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I agree it's reasonable to be skeptical that this was her understanding, but by her own description it's why she refused to take the third patient:

No, Muno, that is not necessarily the only way her words can be taken.

Her words could be taken to portray a couple of understandings (or misunderstandings) and one of those is flat-out ridiculous:

1. continuous monitoring means that if you can't keep your literal eyeballs focused on the literal monitor 100% of the time, continuous monitoring hasn't been achieved.

2. continuous monitoring means that ICU staff can view the monitor at a purposeful glance wherever they are or that someone is attending the in-unit monitor bank.

I was merely pointing out that she may have believed #2, and she may have been incorrect in her understanding, but I think we can rise above any hint of suggesting that she believed #1.

She had some kind of concern that came from somewhere, that she was the one expected to be directly involved in [whatever "continuous monitoring" is].

There is room for critique of her words and her understanding; I refer to my post just above this one to address that.

Specializes in Critical Care.
10 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

I can understand that aspect. I'm not sure any of the 3 patients are best served by the overall idea, but ??‍♀️. My observation has been that generally-speaking, professional nurses don't attempt to prove that something isn't right (by imperfect means such as this complaint, or use of compliance lines or other risky undertakings) unless/until it has become overwhelming or seems quite wrong. We don't have big money and big lawyers to explain our concerns and prove that there is a concern.

By her description, she wasn't being asked to take 3 ICU-level patients, if that was the case I would think she would have made that her argument.

My impression is that she had an ongoing feud with her boss, and rightly so, he sounds like an a-hole, but then after butting heads with him needed to find an argument to back herself up, and chose the in-room-monitor split-screen issue.

Specializes in Critical Care.
2 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

No, Muno, that is not necessarily the only way her words can be taken.

Her words could be taken to portray a couple of understandings (or misunderstandings) and one of those is flat-out ridiculous:

1. continuous monitoring means that if you can't keep your literal eyeballs focused on the literal monitor 100% of the time, continuous monitoring hasn't been achieved.

2. continuous monitoring means that ICU staff can view the monitor at a purposeful glance wherever they are or that someone is attending the in-unit monitor bank.

I was merely pointing out that she may have believed #2, and she may have been incorrect in her understanding, but I think we can rise above any hint of suggesting that she believed #1.

She had some kind of concern that came from somewhere, that she was the one expected to be directly involved in [whatever "continuous monitoring" is].

There is room for critique of her words and her understanding; I refer to my post just above this one to address that.

Neither 1 nor 2 are the definition of "continuous monitoring". It means that patients are continuously monitoring for defined parameters and if they fall out of those parameters there is an audible alarm or other notification to staff to check the monitor. The monitor doesn't have to be within the sightline of staff at all times.

As I acknowledged that she may have misunderstood her obligations with regard to that.

Specializes in ACNP-BC, Adult Critical Care, Cardiology.

She did claim in the details of the lawsuit that there are times when alarms are going off and not being addressed by nurses presumably because the nurses are staffed at 1:3? Very unsafe for sure and not inconceivable in a situation where nurses are overworked. Unfortunately, the details are poorly documented.