Nurse Charged With Homicide

Nurses General Nursing

Published

  1. Should Radonda Vaught, the nurse who gave a lethal dose of Vecuronium to patient at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, be charged with reckless homicide?

    • 395
      She should not have been charged
    • 128
      She deserved to be charged

523 members have participated

image.png.99c04ebc5c4fabc518315a1b77c9e8b9.png

Radonda Vaught, a 35 year old nurse who worked at the University of Medical Center, has been indicted on charges of reckless homicide. Read Nurse Gives Lethal Dose of Vecuronium

Radonda is the nurse who mistakenly gave Vecuronium (a paralytic) to a patient instead of Versed. The patient died.

1 hour ago, LilPeanut said:

Are you in the US? I'd be shocked if there was anywhere in the US where controlled substances are readily available without a second person. 

Yes, I am, and you are not correct about this.

Specializes in Psych.
15 minutes ago, LilPeanut said:

Seems odd to me that you could access a large amount of narcotics without any witnesses ;)

How about just the ordered amount then? You really think it makes sense to require a witness every single time you pull a CS? Ativan, Morphine, Methadone etc really require 2 people?

man, when I worked inpatient hospice that would’ve been impossible. Like I said, waste of time & the implication that one can’t be trusted would make me think twice about working anywhere that requires this.

1 Votes
Specializes in Psych.
1 minute ago, JKL33 said:

Yes, I am, and you are not correct about this.

No, not even a little bit.

13 minutes ago, LilPeanut said:

Seems odd to me that you could access a large amount of narcotics without any witnesses ;)

Well, it isn't like you're stealing them out of a mound of boxes sitting on a pallet in an unsecured area. You're using your fingerprint while on camera and documenting the administration appropriately and having all the machine-related activity regularly monitored.

What's the point of having a witness there to say there is not going to be a waste? The machine already knows if you took out the same amount that was ordered or not and none of that covers what you ultimately do with the medication anyway.

So the procedure of having a witness there when there's no waste is actually pointless. What am I missing?

1 Votes
Specializes in LTC & Teaching.
2 hours ago, LilPeanut said:

So, devil's advocate here. Antiviral medication, like an antibiotic, should never be put off "until the next day" without discussion from the ordering provider. Even if it causes nausea and vomiting, you can treat that, monitor them through the night, but it is one of those meds that needs to start as soon as it is received, IMO. Many antivirals need to be started within a certain time window to be effective.

And a call light is absolutely appropriate for non-licensed personnel to answer. A call light isn't an emergency. The non-licensed personnel could get you if they answer the light and it is an emergent situation, but otherwise, it is definitely an appropriate thing for them to answer.

Sometimes our critical thinking stops a step or two early.

Yes, because it is short acting, she had a head injury, and while too many people don't understand versed and think it is only for conscious sedation, it is an absolutely valid benzo to have chosen. It is frequently used for procedures for children.

Thank you for your input. I agree with much of what you indicate. However, I will clarify a couple of things. Regarding the antiviral medication: I worked on a dementia care unit with 30 plus residents and I was the only Nurse with a couple of support workers. It would've been nearly impossible to wake all of those residents to give each of them the medication. In addition with only one nurse on night shift with that many residents, it would be impossible to safely monitor every resident after they received the medication. The following day the physician changed the administration time of the medication.

As for the call bells: Yes I agree with you that anyone could answer the call bell. However, at the facility where I worked, we were cited by a government expection that the person closest to where the call bell is ringing, must answer the call bell. In adition, the same government inspection indicated that we could no longer answer the call bell from the Nursing Station (which is often done). The government inspection indicated that all call bells must be physically answered in person by the person closest to where the call bell is ringing. The different incidents where I was told to let a different person answer, I was the closest staff member with the next closest staff member being at the far end of the hall. Yet I was still told to let another person answer it.

I'm kind of interested after all of the threads and posts and the newer information if anybody has changed their opinion one way or another.

1 Votes
Specializes in SICU, trauma, neuro.
5 hours ago, LilPeanut said:

Are you in the US? I'd be shocked if there was anywhere in the US where controlled substances are readily available without a second person.

To pull the drug? I have never once needed a witness to pull it; only to waste or return

2 Votes
1 hour ago, Wuzzie said:

I'm kind of interested after all of the threads and posts and the newer information if anybody has changed their opinion one way or another.

I have. When I first heard about this it was a simple news article that presented it as a standard med-error. So I vote "no."

Then, after reading the CMS I was like--

  • "***. . . this nurse was a time bomb. I wonder how many other med-errors she made and got away with?"
  • "must prosecute her because shady and shady BON did nothing"
3 Votes
Specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.
1 hour ago, Wuzzie said:

I'm kind of interested after all of the threads and posts and the newer information if anybody has changed their opinion one way or another.

I have to confess I answered "no" on the survey question. I thought it was just an unfortunate med error. Reading the CMS report was a shocking experience. Unfortunately, the survey would not let me change my answer. I consider the results of it invalid.

The more of these threads I read, the sadder I am about the whole situation. I am alarmed by the number of nurses clutching straws in her defense. The BON did her no favours. Think of it: she could have had a suspended license for awhile, some remedial education, maybe some supervised practice and could have eventually moved on. Now she is facing criminal charges, public humiliation, and the possibility of having to choose between surrendering her nursing license or a custodial sentence. (I'm just speculating on this part; it's what would be going through my head if I was facing this.)

But, no. Since I read the CMS report, I've read nothing further that changes my opinion.

1 Votes
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
7 hours ago, LilPeanut said:

Are you in the US? I'd be shocked if there was anywhere in the US where controlled substances are readily available without a second person.

I’m in the US and there are no drugs I need a second person to remove from the dispenser. I would need a witness for drawing up insulin, but that’s it. And I routinely have pulled high dose potassium. Just because it’s your experience doesn’t mean it’s universal, and policies like that often come around due to incidents in the past, not because it’s standard.

1 Votes
46 minutes ago, TriciaJ said:

The BON did her no favours. Think of it: she could have had a suspended license for awhile, some remedial education, maybe some supervised practice and could have eventually moved on. Now she is facing criminal charges, public humiliation, and the possibility of having to choose between surrendering her nursing license or a custodial sentence.

This COMPLETELY FICTIONAL ACCOUNT attempts to explain why the BON didn't even recommend education for the nurse in question.

INTERIOR: SOFTLY LIT OAK-PANELED OFFICE IN THE TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HEALTH. TWO DISTINGUISHED MEN SIT IN LEATHER CHAIRS SMOKING CIGARS. A CRYSTAL DECANTER OF TENNESSEE WHISKEY IS BETWEEN THEM AND CRYSTAL GLASSES IN THEIR HANDS QUIETLY CLINK WITH ICE AS THEY TALK.

Boss Hog #1: This has been one unfortunate heap of trouble, hasn't it?

Boss Hog #2: And unnecessary. She clicked past warnings asking if the old girl was on a vent, ignored the whole "PARALYTIC" warning label even as she pried it off, states she never even looked at the med she pushed, and don't get me started on walking unlabeled syringes to other floors and not monitoring patients . . . "

Boss Hog #1: Wait, I thought the orders were to give it, stand by and see if she needed more?

Boss Hog #2: See what I mean?

Boss Hog #1: Vandy has already set the mark on this one, so to speak. While we might have handled it differently, we need to follow their lead and keep this. . . . . .discrete.

Boss Hog #2 sighs, takes a drink of whiskey and stares at his cigar as he speaks: 99% of the public has never heard of the Board of Nursing. And sure as hell isn't going to make a peep. They've got that latest thing about removing a patient's brain to sort out.

Boss Hog #1: Plus, I'd bet dollars to donuts something else horrible happens soon at Vandy, like operating on the wrong kidney.

Boss Hog#2 nods and takes a drink: The fambly of the victim isn't fussing-- let's just give that nurse a pass and move on to the next bit of trouble-- since no one is fussing.

Boss Hog #1: What about some education for the nurse and some monitoring? I mean, we pulled the license off a nurse for a random THC test and she wasn't intoxicated and had years of stellar reviews.

Boss Hog #2: We mess with nurses all the time for that and morality stuff, but in this case, Vandy says there was nothing wrong-- even though they fired her-- so if we say there was something wrong that puts Vandy in an awkward spot.

Boss Hog #1: slowly, puffing his cigar: I see your point. I'll get that letter clearing her this week and we'll not here a peep about it.

Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).
9 hours ago, LilPeanut said:

Are you in the US? I'd be shocked if there was anywhere in the US where controlled substances are readily available without a second person.

I don't know. I am in California and the way the pixis or Omnicel works they only dispense one pill at a time and I have never had to have a second signature unless the order was stat. Before the fancy machines and where I work now no 2nd signature required either - only for wastes.

Hppy

+ Add a Comment