Nurses who steal narcotics....

Nurses General Nursing

Published

This is something that always ****** me off to no end. In my career I've know of 4 nurses who stole narcs. One would take liquid morphine and replace it with water, our pharmacy puts blue dye in ours. We had a card of narcs missing and the NOC nurse who accepted it (it had her signature on it) would not come in for a drug test. Another nurse years back would give vicodin, PCT whatever every four hours on the dot to the patients who had severe dementia knowing that they wouldn't be able to say whether or not they actually got the med.

I despise people like this. Why do it? Why not just go to one of those pain clinics and get your narcotics or whatever you want. Figure out which docs happily prescribe meds up the wazoo and go to them. Why take some elderly persons (I'm talking LTC) meds and make them suffer. What are your guys' thoughts on this.

Untill they start drug testing reg. this will always be a problem!!

I just started a job in LTC and they didn't even do one when they hired me!! I couldn't believe it!! My first night on the job the DON came in to give a lecture because a 80ft table was stolen during 2nd shift!! lol .. If they can haul 80ft tables out.. imagine how easy they think it is to take a pill....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Home Health/Hospice.
WHO dyes it blue ?? Your Pharmacy ?? You need to research this, oral morphine can be dispensed in clear, blue, red, depending on the Pharmacuetical company supplying your pharmacy. If your pharmacy is adding blue dye to liquid morphine I would seriously look into this for infection control purposes. I would also wonder what type of blue dye is being used not all is safe esp re to allergies. Also, think about what you are implying "..your tonque turns blue and the staff notices it" Really, if I was stealing drugs and using at work I hardly think that would be my drug of choice if I could get caught so easily"

Nurses who are impaired are much smarter than this and it usually takes a lot of investigative work to catch them.

Besides most drug impaired nurses are getting there "fix" from the good ole doc who has no problem doling out "pain meds" .

\

yes the pharmacy they suck by the way, and maybe like you said it's just dispensed as blue, and yes it would be stupid to take a drug at work and speak and someone notices a blue tongue I know........maybe what I heard about it dying your mouth blue was just a misunderstood comment from a coworker....never really made sense to me actually

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Home Health/Hospice.

This is becoming an interesting thread. I have empathy for addicts but I will say that I have empathy for a nurse who pops the vicodin themselves meant for an elderly patient who is in a lot of pain, that is not right.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in allergy and asthma, urgent care.
Totally off topic, but can physicians prescribe themselves medicine, specifically narcotics?

As shady as it is, If an MD trips on ice and sprains their ankle (able to bear weight, swelling, but no deformity) could they possibly write themselves a script for 3 days worth of vic's? Dumb question probably, but I've never asked before.

In my state a provider cannot write for controlled substances for themselves or a family member. A very good rule, IMO. It is legal to write an rx for other meds for yourself or family members, but IMO, not a good idea.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in allergy and asthma, urgent care.

I have mixed feelings about the whole subject of addiction. I don't believe anyone chooses to be an addict, and I think the drug of choice eventually takes over all rational thought. However, I also feel strongly about personal responsibility and accountability, and an addict can choose to get help. It's hard to have empathy for someone who continues to behave in a way that is destructive to themselves and others. As others have said, I will be the first to help an addict who wants to stop, but I can't feel too sorry for someone who continues to abuse the drug and then has to deal with the consequences.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in M/S, Travel Nursing, Pulmonary.
Poor decisions in addiction is the RESULT of having a genetic and environmental illness. As the result of BEING one of these "heinous" members of society, I have actually become a researcher (PhD candidate) on the issue of addiction. There is nothing in your post that indicates a scholarly knowledge of exactly what addiction is, how it starts, or what defines it.

Sartre (and myself) would counter "We are defined by what we do, not by the reasons for what we do."

If ever the BON were to wise up and start reconsidering second chances for "impaired nurses", I would be at the front of the line to vote "yes, no more second chances".

My saying always has been and always will be "Once a user, always a loser". Someone who diverts pain medication from patients (elderly, CA pts, post-op, w/e the case may be) crosses a line that that there is just no coming back from.

My problem with the "its genetic" or "I have an illness" defense/philosophy is this: That stuff doesn't come into play until YOU"VE MADE A DECISION TO USE. Before that moment, you are not under the restraints of an adiction. What's the excuse for the first time use? There is ample info. documented out there that even if you are not paying attention, you have to know chemical use is dangerous. Are you honestly trying to convince us that before you started poping pills (or w/e it is you did) for pleasure, you had not idea of the dire consequences of drug addiction? Thats a hard sale.

:smokin: I'm a former smoker. Had to quit twice. Hardest thing I've ever done.......twice. I started smoking because at the time, I had some pretty severe personality deficiencies going on. I was immature, unable to perceive the relation between actions and consequences and quite frankly......thought I was better than the avg. joe/indestructable. I can own that, have no problem admitting it. Even as bad as I was back then though......I knew not to mess with "illegal" substances. There was some.......thing......that told me it would take me places I didn't want to be (stealing, taking advantage of people, "impaired"). I had enough fortitude to say, as bad as it gets.........I won't go there.

Thats the difference. People who use to the point of being "impaired" have crossed that line. No reason for me to have sympathy for them once they have done so. I don't expect people to feel sorry for me because I'm out of shape from years of smoking. Drug adicts choose to use with complete disregard of the consequences for themselves and for everyone around them (hence the drug diversion). I have no problem with non-users returning said disregard for the adict when they decide to protect themselves from said adict.

Problem I have with adicts who insist that users should be sympathised with is that their philosophies/theories/arguments tend to disregard those of us who had the sense not to go down that road in the first place. Those are the people I consider the "authorities" on the subject, no the users. They got the point without having the take the bad road.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.

I always thought the reason liquid oral morphine was dyed was to make it easier to see when you draw it up with the dropper. I've never heard of dyeing it to turn someone's tongue a different color so you could tell if they'd diverted. Come to think of it, I gave plenty of it to hospice patients, and I can't recall any of them having funny colored tongues.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in allergy and asthma, urgent care.
Sartre (and myself) would counter "We are defined by what we do, not by the reasons for what we do."

If ever the BON were to wise up and start reconsidering second chances for "impaired nurses", I would be at the front of the line to vote "yes, no more second chances".

My saying always has been and always will be "Once a user, always a loser". Someone who diverts pain medication from patients (elderly, CA pts, post-op, w/e the case may be) crosses a line that that there is just no coming back from.

My problem with the "its genetic" or "I have an illness" defense/philosophy is this: That stuff doesn't come into play until YOU"VE MADE A DECISION TO USE. Before that moment, you are not under the restraints of an adiction. What's the excuse for the first time use? There is ample info. documented out there that even if you are not paying attention, you have to know chemical use is dangerous. Are you honestly trying to convince us that before you started poping pills (or w/e it is you did) for pleasure, you had not idea of the dire consequences of drug addiction? Thats a hard sale.

:smokin: I'm a former smoker. Had to quit twice. Hardest thing I've ever done.......twice. I started smoking because at the time, I had some pretty severe personality deficiencies going on. I was immature, unable to perceive the relation between actions and consequences and quite frankly......thought I was better than the avg. joe/indestructable. I can own that, have no problem admitting it. Even as bad as I was back then though......I knew not to mess with "illegal" substances. There was some.......thing......that told me it would take me places I didn't want to be (stealing, taking advantage of people, "impaired"). I had enough fortitude to say, as bad as it gets.........I won't go there.

Thats the difference. People who use to the point of being "impaired" have crossed that line. No reason for me to have sympathy for them once they have done so. I don't expect people to feel sorry for me because I'm out of shape from years of smoking. Drug adicts choose to use with complete disregard of the consequences for themselves and for everyone around them (hence the drug diversion). I have no problem with non-users returning said disregard for the adict when they decide to protect themselves from said adict.

Problem I have with adicts who insist that users should be sympathised with is that their philosophies/theories/arguments tend to disregard those of us who had the sense not to go down that road in the first place. Those are the people I consider the "authorities" on the subject, no the users. They got the point without having the take the bad road.

Well, I think this is a little harsh. People do deserve second chances. I've encountered several people, both personally and professionally, who were willing to do the hard work to overcome their addictions and succeeded. These people deserve a lot of credit, IMHO. And I do have empathy for those that are addicts. I wouldn't want that monkey on my back for anything. But that doesn't mean I have to condone their behavior or excuse it because of their "disease". Again, there's that personal responsibility thing I'm so big on. But yeah, I think people do deserve a chance to change their behavior.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.

"Once a user, always a loser"?

Thankfully, state BONs don't share that mentality.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
sartre (and myself) would counter "we are defined by what we do, not by the reasons for what we do."

hi, i agree with this saying :)

if ever the bon were to wise up and start reconsidering second chances for "impaired nurses", i would be at the front of the line to vote "yes, no more second chances".

is this only for impaired nurses or for all people regardless of what they do in life?

my saying always has been and always will be "once a user, always a loser". someone who diverts pain medication from patients (elderly, ca pts, post-op, w/e the case may be) crosses a line that that there is just no coming back from.

so that girl/guy way back in highschool that smoked the odd joint, went to the odd party, dropped out of school due to a parents illness as they parent was too ill at the time to guide them, will always remain a loser even if 20 years down the road they have a college/university education as they went back as a mature adult, they have a family of their own and are getting by in life just like everyone else? maybe that person became a psychologist, or a minister, or a nurse, or maybe they just enjoyed staying home with their children and are nothing but a stay at home parent who are raising the next generations future scientists, police, doctors, authors...however that person would still be a loser im assuming as they toked up way back when....:uhoh3:

my problem with the "its genetic" or "i have an illness" defense/philosophy is this: that stuff doesn't come into play until you"ve made a decision to use. before that moment, you are not under the restraints of an adiction. what's the excuse for the first time use? there is ample info. documented out there that even if you are not paying attention, you have to know chemical use is dangerous. are you honestly trying to convince us that before you started poping pills (or w/e it is you did) for pleasure, you had not idea of the dire consequences of drug addiction? thats a hard sale.

maybe thats why its easy for some to stop because they do have that toke or that drink for curiousity sake...however what about those who have depression, are abused physically/mentally/emotionally/spiritually starting as young children? thank goodness i never experienced that, however i do know others who have and i would not want to go through what they went through. being raped as a child, beaten, used as a punching bag. ive been in trailers and apartments which were dingy and dark as a teenager and thanked my lucky stars that my own mom (even though she was ill) kept a nice home over my head! ive seen what people go through. having no home, living on the streets. ive known 12-13 yr olds living on the streets and being used by some scum and given drugs. thats how many addicts get started. not by thinking, gee this looks fun, i think ill try this! is it a choice at the time many start?

:smokin: i'm a former smoker. had to quit twice. hardest thing i've ever done.......twice. i started smoking because at the time, i had some pretty severe personality deficiencies going on. i was immature, unable to perceive the relation between actions and consequences and quite frankly......thought i was better than the avg. joe/indestructable. i can own that, have no problem admitting it. even as bad as i was back then though......i knew not to mess with "illegal" substances. there was some.......thing......that told me it would take me places i didn't want to be (stealing, taking advantage of people, "impaired"). i had enough fortitude to say, as bad as it gets.........i won't go there.

smoking was a stupid choice for me also. smoking should be illegal. smoking and alcohol are worse than pot in my opinion. not that i would want my children smoking pot. however smoking tobacco and alcohol kill and hospitalize far more people than pot does per year.

thats the difference. people who use to the point of being "impaired" have crossed that line. no reason for me to have sympathy for them once they have done so. i don't expect people to feel sorry for me because i'm out of shape from years of smoking. drug adicts choose to use with complete disregard of the consequences for themselves and for everyone around them (hence the drug diversion). i have no problem with non-users returning said disregard for the adict when they decide to protect themselves from said adict.

again i disagree. im thankful i havent been depressed and abused and in that situation where ive had to start taking something or conned by some person. although i admit to experimenting in my youth, so i suppose that would make me a loser still. i can live with that :)

problem i have with adicts who insist that users should be sympathised with is that their philosophies/theories/arguments tend to disregard those of us who had the sense not to go down that road in the first place. those are the people i consider the "authorities" on the subject, no the users. they got the point without having the take the bad road.

in a way im glad i experimented somewhat, as having those memories of puking for hours on end on a few occasions, does give me sympathy for those who are truly addicts as i could not fathom living that lifestyle. :redbeathe:nurse:. (a stupid kid experimenting is far different from an addict-myself i was a stupid kid -had fun though with no regrets ;) )..

tried replying to this..my replies are in the purple...my apoligies if i messed this post up.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

I work with pain management patients and with addicted nurses. NO ONE is addicted because of recreational drug use. The large majority of patients became addicted to prescribed pain meds. Most nurses are addicted because of back and neck pain. Some diverted drugs most most of them had prescriptions for Percocet and Vicodan.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in addiction nurse.

This thread is extremely timely as I am writing a piece on the stigma assoicated with nurses who have an alcohol or other drug addiction. It points to the ignorance and judgmental attitudes nurses have towards each other which is a HUGE part of the dilemma as who in their right mind would feel even entitled to ASK for help from some colleagues here?

A recent article may be of interest to some in the recent Journal of Clinical Nursing titled "Don't ask don't tell: substance abuse and addiction among nurses" by Monroe and Kenaga.

There is also a book on 29 nurses from 20 states overcoming addiction which gives hope to many more and underscores the contribution many nurses have made in long-term recovery.

It is my hope, which I put into action by providing much in the way of pro bono efforts along with others in the area of peer assistance to nurses, that no one reading this has to go through what many have experienced with an alcohol or other drug addiction.

Paula Davies Scimeca, RN, MS

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment