Published
http://courts.phila.gov/pdf/opinions/civiltrial/feldman.pdf
on page 3 says : Furthermore, in Pennsylvania, the duty to obtain informed consent runs only
from the physician to the patient, and not from the facility itself"
Thank you for that link and the document. Unfortunately, I need documentation specifically about blood transfusions; that is speaking of surgical informed consent. There is mention of a complication the plaintiff claimed came from the administration of blood but the consent for the blood was not an issue itself.
So if anyone knows where I can support the claim that registered nurses cannot obtain informed consent for the blood transfusion, I would be grateful. Physicians are maintaining that nurses can get the consent because they are the ones administering the blood -- as opposed to surgery where it is the physician performing the surgery. This runs counter to what I've always held as true and have seen at other facilities. But I can't find the documentation that supports it.
Thank you.
In emergency situations, blood can be given without a consent. In nonemergent but middle of the night situations, I've worked in places were (a) the resident -- in a teaching hospital -- was called to obtain consent or (b) the house doctor got consent or © the ER doc got consent (they REALLY hate that). Nurses did NOT get consent, period.
In Texas, we not only do blood consents but also surgery consents on behalf of the physician. If physician writes for blood, you have to get the consent. If the physician orders "consent for surgery," you have to get the consent.
Not how it should be, not comfortable with it, but that's how it is.
Zee_RN, BSN, RN
951 Posts
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I have always been told that registered nurses are not to obtain informed consent for blood transfusions; it is out of their scope of practice. Only physicians can obtain blood consents.
Does anyone know where I can find documentation of this fact? The internet is NOT being my friend today. :)
Thank you!